Speak Out: California Would Lose Seats Under Census Change

Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Oct 28, 2009, at 11:08 PM:

Among the many things I never knew:

California Would Lose Seats Under Census Change

A Republican senator's proposal to count only United States citizens when reapportioning Congress would cost California five seats and New York and Illinois one each [due, apparently, to their high numbers of illegals], according to an independent analysis of census data released Tuesday. Texas, which is projected to gain three seats ... would get only one.

"If Congressional and other redistricting was done in this manner, it would mean that regions of states that had fewer immigrants, such as upstate New York, would gain, while those with many immigrants would lose," said Andrew A. Beveridge, a Queens College sociologist who analyzed the census data. "This is going to disempower immigrants massively."

The Constitution, as amended, requires that Congressional districts be reapportioned on the basis of a count every 10 years of the "whole number of persons" in each state.

Opponents argue not only that the census has traditionally included every person, but also that the proposed change would delay the 2010 count and would also discourage immigrants in the country illegally from participating in the census.

http://tinyurl.com/yl9co4t

Does it make sense that illegal residents are counted to determine how many congressmen (more 'voices/representation' in a state's government) a state may have? Is this reasonable? Should our government be concerned that illegals might be disempowered? Isn't this sort of like taxpayers' money being used to assure illegals representation?

Replies (19)

  • It's only been done this way for 230 years, as directed by the Constitution.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:04 AM
  • FriendO,

    I agree. The Constitution specifically calls for "ennumeration" - a head count in order to determine the number of Representatives allowed to legislate in the House from each respective state. That is the only purpose of the census.

    People should keep this in mind whenever they receive their census forms. The only information that you should provide is the name of the head of household, and the number of other people living there.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:36 AM
  • I don't have a problem at all with illegals being 'counted' ... just that it doesn't seem right to me that congressional district seats are allocated by including a segment of the population which should probably have no legal right to 'representation' in our government.

    Or perhaps there's some consideration because some of them do pay income taxes?

    So, FriendO ... 230 years ago, in 1779 ... when this country was heavily populated by what might now be considered 'illegals' ... That amendment may not have been seen in the same light as it might be considered today.

    Sorry, but representation for those who are not American citizens just seems to sort of compound some of the problems we have with illegals aliens ... It surely must make some wonder if those states with larger illegal populations are intentionally overlooking their illegals because ...

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 2:57 PM
  • Thinking about it, FriendO ... Was wondering: Does your mentioning it mean that you think it's a fair and reasonable way for representatives to be apportioned, or does it mean that you think it's past time we became aware of this and tried to get it changed ... because back then, no one visualized 'the several states' becoming 50 states, or a having a problem with illegal immigration?

    "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."

    How funny ... Is that saying that the most perhaps legitimate of our citizens are not counted in the census (or have I overlooked a change in that phrase somewhere down the line?) ... just because they are 'not taxed?' How confusing!

    A Good Quote by Elliott Stonecipher, saying he believes the legal issues are still in doubt, but that the principles involved are clear.

    "I have yet to read one spokesperson from the left who will simply argue that noncitizens should get representation in the House of Representatives," he said. "They will use all kinds of other arguments, mainly about settled law and the 14th Amendment, but they won't ever jump up and say, 'We believe here's the reason noncitizens should have representation in the House of Representatives.'"

    Shouldn't we be asking for those reasons?

    lumpy ... the census is now geared toward greater things than just a head count and basis for representation. Sadly enough ...

    Okay, I'm finished. It's not a big deal, except to perhaps Californians maybe? ~smiling~

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 4:37 PM
  • Gurusmom,

    That is an interesting quirk.

    I agree that that she be counted. The information provided in census is used for so many different purposes.

    The problem isn't that it gives illegals a voice, it just gives the areas where illegals reside a louder voice, which should not occur.

    I have an idea for determining seats, and it might be a stupid idea, but what about using tax info to determine districts. That way those legally paying into the system determine the districts. Now I know those on Social Security don't have to file, so some collaboration would have to occur.

    -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 4:50 PM
  • Never new the census was geared to a political party there Mr Wiffle. Concidering it helps both Democrats and Republicans gain or lose seats depending on what area of a state has a larger/smaller population then in the previous census. But hell, I guess all that is evil is one party or the other and has nothing to do with doing something required by the constitution.

    Now as far as who is counted and who isn't? Has that not always been an issue? Try doing your family tree and see how precise the census really is. Don't believe me because of my politics, ask Wheels.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 4:56 PM
  • gurusmom,

    The Constitution calls out for an "Enumeration" once every ten years (except for the very first census) for one purpose: to appropriate among the states the number of House representatives who will then speak for and represent the people on federal matters.

    That's it. If the census is being used for other purposes then it would be against our best interests as citizens of the United States to provide any other information than our name and address.

    But, since the census is used for other purposes, illegals are now relevant in it's current un-Constitutional execution.

    It's actually a pretty big deal to all of us.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 5:20 PM
  • Rick,

    If they were counted they were counted as 2/3 of a person. But I'm not quite sure.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 5:32 PM
  • Rick,

    I found this......

    "The first U.S. Census was conducted in 1790 by Federal marshals. Census takers went door to door and recorded the name of the head of the household and the number of people in each household. Slaves were enumerated, but only three out of five were counted for apportionment. American Indians, being neither taxed nor considered during apportionment, were not counted in the census."

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 5:35 PM
  • Now as far as who is counted and who isn't? Has that not always been an issue? Try doing your family tree and see how precise the census really is. Don't believe me because of my politics, ask Wheels.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 4:56 PM

    Pups,

    You trying to get me in trouble? Lately every time I voice an opinion, I get in trouble. :-) You are correct of course. The varied answers you get from the same people one decade to the next leads to a lot of confusion in Genealogy, and the years some people seem to disappear only to turn up in the next census at the same location, leads to the conclusion that not all are counted by any means.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 5:59 PM
  • Wheels,

    Why should I only be the one in trouble??

    Mr Wiffle,

    Would think you would be happy about that.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 6:12 PM
  • I think it is a very sound idea, only citizens are granted representation also, I like the idea of California having less representation in Congress!

    -- Posted by mobushwhacker on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 6:34 PM
  • So now all of a sudden the Constitution needs to be changed because it would favor the Republicans if we didn't count "whole number of persons" the Constitution requires.

    Kind of interesting how some who claim the Constitution should be taken as written now want to re-write it. Oh and lets not forget the best reason,,, it would cause the evil state of Calif (Republican Gov. incase you all forgot) to lose seats.

    Oh and back when the first census was taken there were lots of 'non americans' counted. Unless you believe that all those living in the US in 1790 were citizens.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 6:43 PM
  • Pups,

    There is really no need to re-write the Constitution. We have been winging it since before the ink was dry.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 6:46 PM
  • Lumpy,

    I will conceed,

    "The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was a two-step process for proposing and ratifying new amendments."

    But thats all. lol

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 6:59 PM
  • Everything that I know about the Constitution, I learned here...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc

    Unfortunately, I am now overqualified to hold a public office.

    -- Posted by Lumpy on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:28 PM
  • Lumpy,

    That was good. I missed that when I was in grade school. I think the internet was probably down the day we were supposed to view it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:36 PM
  • Ok, posted more then intended.

    Everyone have a great night.

    -- Posted by Pups on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:41 PM
  • Goodnight Pups.........

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Oct 29, 2009, at 7:44 PM

Respond to this thread