Would Counting Illegal Immigrants Make the Census Pro–Democratic Party?

The Census fight overlooks the fact that the number of unauthorized residents is declining.


The Trump administration will reportedly try yet again to add a question about respondents' legal status to the 2020 Census. The Supreme Court previously nixed the question because the rationale articulated by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees that decennial head count, was clearly false. The judicial branch has the right to review administrative-agency rulings under the Administrative Procedure Act and, as Jacob Sullum has written, if Ross had been less full of beans, the Court would have likely signed off on the question since the secretary "has broad discretion to determine census questions."

Ross claimed several times in congressional testimony that he included the question after the Department of Justice prodded him to do so. Internal communications prove it was in fact Ross initiated its inclusion. Furthermore, he claimed that adding a question about legal status would lead to "more effective enforcement" of the Voting Rights Act, a law held mostly in contempt by the Republicans pushing the legal-status question. Indeed, it seems unquestionable that the goal of adding the question is to suppress participation by non-citizens even though, as Matt Welch has pointed out, the main function of the Census has been to figure out how to reapportion House seats. "According to both the Constitution and all active Supreme Court precedent on the issue," Welch writes, "House reapportionment is based on the number of residents, not number of legal residents or eligible voters."

That basic reality frightens Republicans such as Ford O'Connell, who served as director of rural outreach for John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. The headline to a recent O'Connell screed says, "If you don't think illegal immigrants are voting for president, think again." The actual article admits to something different:

No, illegal immigrants aren't allowed to directly vote for the commander-in-chief yet, but in vast numbers they can dramatically alter the Electoral College to favor Democrats for at least a decade because a state's electoral votes are based on the number of people residing within that state, not the number of citizens present when the Decennial Census is taken.

If that's the big fear, Republicans should take a couple of deep breaths. The number of illegal immigrants has been declining, and it is at its lowest point in about a dozen years. According to Pew Research, "In 2017, an estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007." Other data from Pew document that about 60 percent of undocumented immigrants live in one of 20 major metro areas, almost all of which have seen sharp declines in the illegal population's numbers:

These trends are unlikely to be affected by recent upsurges in migrants showing up at the border between Mexico and the United States, as the numbers aren't big enough to alter the national picture. However the legal drama plays out over the next few weeks, the number of people here illegally seems likely to keep declining.


NEXT: Jeffrey Epstein in Court Today on Sex Trafficking Charges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. How does anyone know? My own experiences with “undocumented immigrants” living next door is that they never answer any questions about their status. The church they attend will not only not offer any assistance to government officials of any sort, but will impede. The school has a policy of never asking, as does the hospital.

    1. My own experiences with “undocumented immigrants” living next door is that they never answer any questions about their status.

      “Hey girl, you single?” will not be on the census, buddy.

  2. If the concern is the effects on the electoral college, the simple solution is Presidential elections by direct vote. Would a few immigrants really skew the election more than low population states like Wyoming, Vermont, North and South Dakota? If this is the argument I say its a wash.

    1. “I say its a wash”

      Because you lost.

      1. Clingers won an election.

        Their betters won a culture war.

        Clingers are losers.

        1. I’m sorry you spent your childhood getting beaten by stronger boys.

    2. Seems like you misunderstand the purpose of the electoral college

      1. Not sure the purpose of the EC is important here. The article hypothesizes that noncitizen immigrants will skew the election. I am suggesting no more skew than that from low population states. How many more immigrants would you have to count in California to equal or surpass Wyoming’s advantage? Note that WY has about 2.4% non citizens itself.

        1. ” I am suggesting no more skew than that from low population states.”

          Which is, of course, not skew at all.

        2. I might have misunderstood. I thought you were advocating for proportional voting instead of EC. My point was that the purpose of the electoral college is to skew advantage away from high population density areas. In constitutional terms, we don’t want that obviously.

      2. Ever wonder why even when we instill democracy in other nations we never have an electoral college? It’s because it’s an anachronistic joke.

        Only people who want it are the ones who benefit (and unfairly) from it. There’s no sound argument for saying someone from Wyoming gets more voting power than someone from liberal California or conservative Texas.

        Want the ability to not be run roughshod by big states? It’s there in the Senate, where even that seems completely moronic to value land over people.

        1. Have you ever read the Constitution? It’s whole point is to protect the rights of the few from the demands of the many. The Electoral College, like so many other checks, is to avoid mob rule. You can expect the destruction of the Bill of Rights if you have outright proportional voting in America. Rights are rights whether the majority agrees with them or not.

          1. ‘Wearingit’ is a Buttplug sock. So not kinky is he a Marxist piece of shit, he also loves kiddie porn and probably rapes children.

            1. Got it

        2. Ever wonder why Americans still think America is a democracy??!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! America is a Republic!!! Difference being that Individuals rights aren’t on the popular vote ballot — yet it seems a good 80% still insists that they are…

        3. There’s plenty of sound reason to give anybody more of a voice than a moron from the coasts of CA or NYC.

          LOOK AT SF. They have fucking medieval diseases making a comeback.

    3. It also comes back to representation and federal largesse. I know Cali doesn’t want fewer votes in the house nor do they want to lose any of that sweet cash.

      1. California is pretty close to the middle of states getting federal money back (remember CA pays a lot of taxes to the Feds). You might want to target some of the southern states that get more federal money back than they pay in. Think Mississippi or Alabama.

        1. No, I think I’ll continue to go after Cali. You want to be an ideological asshole and run the country? You want to LEAD? Then you get more scrituny.

          Get back to me when Mississippi requires the rest of the country to abide by their standards like Cali does.

        2. Think MD and VA my friend. And we thank you all for the you taxes send our way. The following counties normally are in the top 10 in any given year and are currently per Google the top 5.

          Loudoun County, Virginia.
          Fairfax County, Virginia.
          Howard County, Maryland.
          Falls Church city, Virginia.
          Arlington County, Virginia.

          1. Go figure. 4 of those are where most of my jobs are.

            1. That’s because those are the counties surrounding Washing D.C. so of course they receive more federal dollars, that’s where the federal government lives, they like to keep the money close to home

              Its one of the arguments in favor of moving federal agency headquarters away from D.C. and spreading them more evenly around the country

        3. Meh, Cali is the tax cheat king. They make 14% of the total US income yet only pay 12% of the total tax revenue. No other state even comes close but several states far poorer than Cali take it in the shorts.

          Getting back to my point, it isn’t just about the electoral college, it’s also about how many representatives get apportioned in the House. Federal largesse is another factor because few people means less welfare and repairs or things like roads. Cali was just an example, TX, FL, NM, etc. don’t want any losses either.

        4. Idiot.

          States do not pay federal taxes. People do.

          And for the most part, states do not get federal payouts. People do.

          And (for now) people are still free to move across state lines, and take their tax payments and benefits with them. If you or anyone else feels like they live in a “underpaid” state, then move.

    4. The whole problem with the Electoral System is that one candidate gets ALL the Electoral votes for that state, except for Maine & Nebraska which apportion their Electoral votes via Congressional district….That is the fairest way to do it, every Congressional district gets one electoral vote & then every citizen’s vote matters a lot more…Doing it this way , Trump would’ve won in 2016 as well!

      1. If every congressional district gets one electoral vote there will still be 100 votes unaccounted for as there is an elector for every seat in congress, both the house and senate. My best guess is that the intent, which I admit I’m making up as I go along, was that the “state” got two electors for the statewide winner and one elector for each congressional district.

      2. States are free to assign electoral votes however they want.

        The entire point of the electoral college is that it’s the states that elect the president not the people.

  3. which (D) party? nobody comes here for the socialism and the Clintonistas have maybe 2-3 rounds left before they’re retired.

    nothing stops the undocumented from anything in the US right now what does it matter what the census asks?

  4. I hope we can establish, at least, that this is the nature of the fight–it’s about whether the Republicans will be disadvantaged in the next election. The Democrats want that.

    Incidentally, this is what the recent argument about whether to give convicted felons in Florida the right to vote back was about, too. They expect those convicted felons to mostly vote Democrat, and if you dump another 1.5 million of them on the voter roles, it’s more likely that Florida will go blue rather than red.

    Because we believe in certain principles doesn’t mean we need to be blind to the political realities, and I’m glad to see reality is being given an honest acknowledgment, here, anyway.

    1. Is there any data to suggest either illegal immigrants or inmates would vote democrat? Considering how many non-violent offenders Trump is releasing, you’d think the prison population would vote for more of that. And I think if he stopped the deportation talk he could use the economy to convince illegal immigrants to vote for him.

      I’m not convinced allowing either party to vote would sway elections.

      1. Aside from the Democrat Party being a criminal organization?

        1. Your resentment of your betters won’t do you much good, clinger.

          1. I’m sorry you spent your childhood getting beaten by stronger boys.

      2. I’m sure there are plenty of blue collar Latinos who support Trump, but I’d be surprised if illegal aliens and convicted felons didn’t skew Democrat.

      3. LOL!!! C’mon, Bro, of course they vote pretty 100% Demon-Crat!!!

      4. The democrats own the media, or vice versa. So they are a powerful propaganda tool to twist and suppress the truth and influence the less aware folks out there.

        1. I agree they own a bunch of entities but Fox News gets more views the rest combined. And the whole conservatives being the underdogs thing seems to play out every election

          1. FNC doesn’t have the viewership — nowhere near it — of NBC, CBS, or ABC News.

            Cable doesn’t top broadcast viewership.

    2. Ken Shultz : “I hope we can establish, at least, that this is the nature of the fight–it’s about whether the Republicans will be disadvantaged in the next election. The Democrats want that.”

      No we can’t establish that, because it’s bullshit. Illegal immigrants aren’t voting in elections because the GOP is ever panting-eager to “prove” they are, but never come up with more than a microscopic handful of examples.

      So let’s return to realty, shall we? This farrago is about depressing the census count by several million to affect House redistricting as the late Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller admitted in 2015, saying adding the question would produce data needed to redraw political maps that would be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,”

      But there are two problems Ken : According to the Constitution, Supreme Court, US history, et al, non-citizens count when House lines are drawn. Sorry, but it’s always been that way from the country’s earliest beginning.

      Second, the purpose of the census is an accurate count. The aim of the GOP is to sabotage that. Are you so partisan you don’t see that as a problem?

      1. Cool.
        Let’s count tourists too.

        We don’t know if illegals are voting. The states where they are most likely to do so won’t turn over their data.

      2. Right, so the fight over the census question isn’t about whether the Republicans will be disadvantaged in the next election–because redistricting isn’t about that?

        Is this Shrike?

        1. So Ken Shultz’s position is the census is a “disadvantage” to Republicans if the most accurate count is used the same way it’s always been used throughout our country’s history.

          Aren’t you glad for our little trip into Ken-Shultz-World?

          1. My position is that you are a spaz.

            “I hope we can establish, at least, that this is the nature of the fight–it’s about whether the Republicans will be disadvantaged in the next election. The Democrats want that.”

            —-Ken Shultz

            That was, is, and remains valid.

          2. This is historically illiterate.

            Of course the major parties are going to game the system. Reapportionment, redistricting, felons voting, prisoners voting, motor-voter laws….

            They are all 100% about trying to get a political advantage – mostly about trying to game the system in some way.

            Illegals have been at the center of the census fight for at least 4 decades. The dems famously tried to game the system by using “statistical models” to count people – and then they could use a made-up number to plug in for “people who don’t want to be counted”. So California could magically get an extra bump from “uncounted” illegals…. need an extra million? Just build it into your model.

            This isn’t going to change. As long as there is power to be gained, someone will by trying to find the easiest way to gain an advantage.

          3. “So Ken Shultz’s position is the census is a “disadvantage” to Republicans if the most accurate count is used the same way it’s always been used throughout our country’s history.”

            So…should we count tourists?

            Why not? If illegals count, why wouldn’t tourists — except they’re actually here legally?

      3. GRB is spouting bullshit, as usual. We have never comported our congressional apportionment on the premise that we are counting tens of millions of illegals as part of the equation.

  5. the article is premised on the idea that they know how many illegals are in the country. they don’t know, so make your own conclusion about the validity of the article

    1. Maybe we should count them

      every 10 years

      1. Crazy talk!

      2. Except the census doesn’t really count illegals as illegals.

  6. Tax cuts, trillion dollar deficits, artificially low interest rates, forever war, trade war, welfare, social security, Medicare, government regulations, etc.

    Are going to crash our economy so hard that the problem of illegal immigration will soon solve itself, as no one will want immigrate to the socialist paradise that will be voted into existence after the collapse.

  7. Honest question: why is the citizenship question on the Census form so important, to either side? After all, it’s easy enough for people to lie when they fill them out, and I don’t see any practical way to verify the data.

    1. You can’t lie on the Census, that’s illegal.

      1. You can’t lie and you could be prosecuted if caught. What I often wonder is what happen if you refuse to answer a question? The Constitution requires a count of all persons, citizenship would have to be an additional question. Such as:
        1. How many persons in your household?
        2. How many persons listed in 1 are citizens of the US?

        So what happen if a large number (10% to 20%) answer 1 but refuse to answer 2 (leave it blank or write NOYB)? Any scholars out there that can answer this?

        1. You can be fined up to five hundred dollars as I understand it.

        2. You got my curiosity and I looked it up. According to US Code Title 13, Section 221. Its $500 for false answers. The fine is $100 dollars for refusal to answer. I can live with that if the citizenship question is asked.

    2. And “non-citizen” doesn’t imply “illegal” anyway.

        1. Reflexively progressive is no way to go through life, brandy

          1. You mean two wrongs don’t make a right? Mind. Blown.

        2. Yeah. Brandy, because it’s a generally acknowledged fact that the US has over twenty million illegals currently. And quite possibly more than double that.

    3. At this point, and in the context of everything else going on, I think the primary purpose was really to get the Democrats to fight tooth-and-nail against it. If anything will solidify the American (white) working class behind Trump, it’s painting the Democrats as the party of uncontrolled immigration.

    4. People don’t lie on the census because its illegal – similar to the way that you outlaw murder & drugs and they disappear from existence.

    5. I thought the correct answer to any question on the census is, “Do you have a warrant?”

    6. The citizenship question will make illegal immigrants even more likely to try to avoid filling in the form at all. That could reduce the census count of the areas where illegals concentrate.That might shift a few Congressional seats and electoral college votes from those states and cities to areas with few illegals. With 10 million illegals, there is a potential that this could affect nearly 20 Congressional seats, but IMHO, the effect is going to be much less because the vast majority of illegals already try to avoid appearing on any government form. They won’t answer the door when a census worker knocks. When I worked the census decades ago, we had to try to find someone home a certain number of times, and then you asked the neighbors how many year-round residents they saw there, and filled in just the numbers on a form. That is not going to change, so I expect the change in the count will be insignificant.

      And it appears that Republicans are assuming not only that the counts will change, but that the losers here will be Blue cities and states. But many Red rural areas rely on illegals to pick their crops, so which way will the effect really go?

  8. I remember living in Tijuana in the 1970s. The government needed to take a census because the city was growing so fast, but most of the growth was in areas with a population living on land they did not own. If asked anything, or even if anyone from the government was sighted, they ran away. The state government ended up using aerial photographs and assigning apparent density to grids. Random grids of each apparent density were surrounded by Federales in the middle of the night and a door-to-door count was taken. Calculations based on these counts provided the best guess census.
    I doubt New York did anything like this.
    I doubt New York did the same

  9. “Other data from Pew document that about 60 percent of undocumented immigrants live in one of 20 major metro areas, almost all of which have seen sharp declines in the illegal population’s numbers:”

    But since it’s widely claimed that the undocumented will seriously underreport citizenship status on polls, if they respond at all, how can you trust these numbers?

    1. These sort of data are probably just pulled out of someone’s ass. Logic makes a person doubt that there is any validity to a claim that they have any idea at all.

    2. Remember, the census numbers are “adjusted” before handing out the federal dollars. The same guys who adjust the global climate warming change temperatures.

  10. Would counting illegal aliens make the Census ‘Pro Democratic Party’?

    Answer: No, but keeping the illegal aliens here certainly would.

    The citizenship question was asked for decades before POTUS Obama. Removing the question was the outside the norm, not asking it.

    1. It is good to know who are and are not citizen so governments can plan. not all non citizens plan to stay, many are here legally and will return when their business is finished. its a valid question for any government

  11. We need a constitutional amendment to clarify that apportionment is to be based on a count of citizens.

    1. Such an amendment would not qualify as a clarification.

      1. Our founding fathers were very bright but not psychic. If they had anticipated the current situation I don’t believe they would have wanted illegal aliens counted in the apportionment census. See Bubba’s post below.

        1. Our founding fathers would probably have objected entirely to the concept of illegal immigration.

          1. The founders weren’t monolithic. Which ones in particular? Based on what?

            1. They never proposed any restrictions whatsoever on immigration.

              The Constitution specifically grants power to Congress to set rules of *naturalization*, not immigration. They could have written something quite different into the Constitution but chose not to.

              At the time, immigration decisions were set at the state level, not at the federal level, and they knew that. They could have chosen to make immigration a federal matter but did not.

          2. No they wouldn’t Pedo Jeffy. Just like they would likely have a problem with you bringing child rapists here from other countries.

            And where the fuck is my rent you goddamn scofflaw?

          3. And yet, they were OK with not counting Indians as residents unless they were paying taxes, and with counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, because those exceptions to counting everyone made sense to them at the time. No, Jeffy, they were not stupid like you and would have understood the necessity of immigration laws in today’s world.

            1. When did the Founding Fathers ever propose any immigration law whatsoever? They didn’t.

              1. Because the world was a very different place then and they didn’t believe immigration laws were necessary at that time, in that world, which is obvious to anyone except fucking morons like you. They didn’t have any laws about radio broadcasting or speed limits on the interstates, either.

            2. See this discussion on what “Indians not taxed” means:
              It seems reasonable to infer that “Indians not taxed” refers to Native Americans who are living in their own sovereign territories subject to the rules of their own tribes. It does NOT refer to Native Americans who are living in United States territory and subject to United States laws. Those Indians are “taxed” and therefore are to be counted.

              And the 3/5ths compromise is of course a purely political statement.

              The very words of the Census Clause seems to indicate that the Founding Fathers wanted everyone counted, except those who wouldn’t be counted for purely politically expedient reasons, and except those who are recognized to be living in a different sovereign nation.

              So an undocumented immigrant of today is analogous to a “taxed Indian” of the 18th century.

              1. The Legal Genealogist can’t give you a definitive answer. Neither can anybody else.

                So, you give us the answer from a source that denies knowing the answer. Read before you link.

                The rest of you blather is a complete ass pull. The bottom line is that there were people living in the states who were not to be counted for the purposes of apportionment. There was no intention to count everyone, and there were reasons for that. Just as there are good reasons not to apportion representation to illegal aliens today.

  12. This article is shit even by Gillespie standards

    Here we are using dated data from the Great Recession, and we are just going to overlook the flood of arrivals since the economy picked up and DACA was announced and the coyotes and the NGOs helping the caravans told everyone to bring kids with them. Border crossing AND apprehensions have skyrocketed since, Fonzie

    1. The fact that Democrats are freaking out about finding out exactly how many illegals are inside the USA means that, of course, it helps the Democrat Party.

      1. And anything good for the democrat party is bad for America.

    2. The decline shown is 2007 – 2016. Statistical data always lags behind a few years, so Gillespie didn’t cherry pick his data, but used the most recent available. The steepest drop was in the first year or so of the Great Recession, but it continued throughout the Obama administration – even when the economy was trending upwards (although probably still depressed far below where it would have been without all the Obama regulations).

      So you are contending that Obama scared away more immigrants than Trump!

  13. Immigrants in the census actually boosts Team Red numbers! Most Latino immigrants are in the southwest and southeast states. Where there are already Latino communities. Such communities are less frequent in the Pacific Northwest and New England.

    So while this does include Deep Blue California, it also includes Deep Red Texas and Florida.

    1. Exactly. They’re going to live where the jobs are. “Doing the jobs Americans don’t want to do.” Like working plantations in the red south, slaughterhouses in the red great plains, etc..

      I really don’t see why asking about citizenship status is problematic. It’s not like they’re asking people to confess to being here illegally.

      Are you a citizen?

      Y/N/I don’t know/No answer

      1. It’s not like they’re asking people to confess to being here illegally.

        HAHAHAHAHA that’s a good one

    2. I chuckled at Deep Red Texas and Florida. Texas is a blue state now and will flip in the next election cycle or two. Florida has always been a close swing and it would have flipped decades ago if not for the retiree community.

  14. “House reapportionment is based on the number of residents, not number of legal residents or eligible voters.”

    If the census was used solely to reapportion the legislature, you are correct. However, it is also use to shovel out tons of tax dollars, and counting the illegals moves that money from one place to another.

    It also provides corporations with about a gazillion dollars worth of research data for marketing, and who wants to give up that pork barrel?

    If all that was actually going on was reapportionment, a clerk in the white house could send a post card to the registrar in each state asking how many registered voters they have, and do a little math with a 10 key calculator.

  15. “House reapportionment is based on the number of residents, not number of legal residents or eligible voters.”

    That is quite obviously false.

    “…excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.”

    Living within the geography was clearly not the only factor under consideration for apportionment. The Constitutional Convention gave this a lot of thought and subjected it to considerable debate and compromise. It begs the question to assume that Illegal Immigrants (had such a concept existed) would have been counted as whole numbers. The precedent is that they would NOT have.

  16. The premise of the article is clearly bullshit, as Nash points out. I don’t think anyone close to an illegal immigrant community could believe the population is going down. Gillespie is gaslighting.

    The point, for me, is that we have the right and duty to know how much of our population are citizens and how much aren’t. That Ds are cheating through demographic manipulation and undermining the sovereignty of our elected government is not inconsequential either.
    Objections to the question “are you a citizen” on a freaking census are absurd and literally irrational. The US receives a million legal immigrants every year, so there are presumably tens of millions of noncitizens who are legal residents. There is no reason for a legal resident to avoid the question – it is in no way threatening.
    There is no legitimate objection to the question. That it might “discourage” someone from responding to the census isn’t an indication that there’s something wrong with the question, it’s an indication that there’s something wrong with the person (and their advocates) avoiding responsibility.
    It’s an indication that the person who feels uncomfortable responding has low character.
    If one doesn’t respond to the census, does one even deserve representation?

    1. we have the right and duty to know how much of our population are citizens and how much aren’t.

      Okay, why?

      (And by “we”, what you really mean is, of course, “the government”.)

      1. Government of, by, and for The People have the responsibility to know who The People are

        1. Why? What legitimate purpose does it serve for the state to know how many residents are citizens and how many aren’t?

          It only needs to know if citizens are the only ones who are using the privileges afforded to citizens alone.

    2. The law in California mandates that “undocumented” people are entitled to driver licenses. The law in California allows everyone who gets a driver license to be automatically registered to vote (“Motor Voter”). The law in California no longer allows for so-called partisan primaries; most elections end up with two people from the same party (most often Democrats, by far) running against each other, with no opportunity for any other party realistically to participate.

      In my many years of voting (and renewing driver licenses) in California I have never been asked for proof that I’m a U.S. citizen.

      It’s naive to think that there are not thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of non-U.S. citizens voting in every California election, and most likely voting for Democrats.

      Whether the U.S. Census question would address this I don’t know, but it certainly is an issue that should somehow be openly discussed and addressed.

      1. If you want to talk about voter fraud, it would help to start with some statistics.

        Starting with an anecdotal observation of your own personal experience is not terribly convincing. Others reading your experience have no idea if your experience is representative of the general situation, or an outlier.

        1. I’ve heard the same story from numerous sources.
          Do you have anything to go on other than “lalalalala – I can’t hear you – lalalalala”?

          Statistics can be difficult to gather when measurement is prevented.

        2. That’s hardly anecdotal. It’s the legal reality. Illegals can in fact obtain licenses, California is a one party state, and proof of citizenship above a valid license is not required to vote.

  17. […] “Would Counting Illegal Immigrants Make the Census Pro–Democratic Party?” By Nick Gillespie […]

  18. […] “Would Counting Illegal Immigrants Make the Census Pro–Democratic Party?” By Nick Gillespie […]

  19. I don’t suppose appealing to the actual interests of the Brown Hordes, in proper democratic fashion, ever crossed the mind of Republicans.

    Of course they are so right about everything, and democracy just gets in the way of their righteous correctness about tax cuts for billionaires solving literally everything.

    1. They really have embraced the “cultural determinism” narrative.

    2. Appealing to the interests of foreigners in order to get elected? There’s been a lot of talk about impeaching our current president for allegedly doing that, so it might be a risky strategy.

    3. Yeah, I don’t get why Republicans aren’t thanking their lucky stars they’re getting millions of pro-life, Christian, hardworking, pro-family people wanting to immigrate (vs. ultra-liberal Euros or widespread Muslim immigration with the risk of sleeper agents). Mexican Catholics should be natural Republicans. Repubs just gotta tone down the racism.

      1. That imaginary racism is a bitch

      2. Everyone should be concerned about importing tens of millions of people from failed socialist shitholes. There’s a reason why their societies were structured as such in the first place.

  20. Given that the population in NY state and city is declining, how are they going to keep their congressional apportionment and fed handouts without some immigrant padding?

    1. Stop issuing death certificates?

  21. Why can’t they just answer the question? It doesn’t change how many Electoral Votes California gets.

    1. It hurts their feelings.

  22. WT?? — “According to both the Constitution and all active Supreme Court precedent on the issue,” Welch writes, “House reapportionment is based on the number of residents, not number of legal residents or eligible voters.”

    WHAT A BIG FAT BLATANT LIE!!!!! The Constitution CLEARLY and undeniably marked by the 14th Amendment that ONLY legal residents be counted…

    Never-mind its just freak-en common-sense. Does Welch also think the U.S. Constitution applies to people in China too?

  23. “If trends continue” is the dumbest non-argument ever. Why would trends continue when there’s an active push for amnesty and chain migration? Even a million of these people staying would result in tens of millions demographically replacing us. Damage has already been done and if we don’t act now, the country is gone. We already lost California and Texas. It won’t be possible to have fair elections anymore.

    1. Maybe you should fuck off with your “demographic replacement” crap.

  24. “House reapportionment is based on the number of residents, not number of legal residents or eligible voters.”‘

    Residency is a legal status. If you’re here illegally, you’re just an invader.

  25. If current laws dictate the house is apportioned based on total population instead of legal population, or eligible voters… It was one of many oversights the founders made. It shouldn’t be based on that.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.