From the NY Post:The White House has made clear that its intention is to put extra effort in counting illegal immigrants. It wants to make sure that all 12 million illegals are counted, a task that's not easy given the desire of most illegals to avoid detection.
So the Census Bureau is teaming up with community organizations that can reach out to this population. The bureau had contracted with ACORN to be part of the Census count, until that group came under heavy criticism after two conservative activists videotaped its workers giving tax advice to what they thought were a pimp and a prostitute. Instead, it will use other groups, including Hispanic and immigrant-advocacy organizations and the Service Employees International Union.
Yet there's enormous potential for a Census count that includes illegal immigrants to skew the political process. It will mean some congressional districts will include huge numbers of persons who aren't eligible to vote -- and whose elected leaders therefore aren't really democratically accountable.
It so happens that many of these districts will elect Democrats, since illegals often settle in poorer neighborhoods, whose legal residents and citizens tend to vote Democratic. So congressional Democrats and the White House are more than happy to see voting power shift to these new rotten boroughs.
But the real issue is what this will mean to individual voters in districts that are made up mostly of citizens. Their votes will, in effect, be diluted by the votes of citizens who live in districts where large numbers of illegal immigrants live.
This change has the potential to alter the meaning of representative democracy. If the administration succeeds in counting 12 million illegals in the Census, its effect will be to disenfranchise an equal number of US citizens.
26 comments:
You'd better watch yourself Obama.
Your government's association with Acorn is going to wind up dragging you down.
You'll be strictly a one term president.
Maybe a shady group is the best choice to track illegals who are hiding out.
Hire a crook to catch a thief!
It makes perfect sense that an illegal alien occupying the white house by lying wants to now count illegal aliens to bolster the illegal occupation.
And don't ever believe - for even a moment - that ACORN is out of the illegal alien counting game.
As "community organizers" they simply reorganized under a new name.
Obama will never be caught acting honestly.
...A hard rain's going to fall.
Dylan
Why not just use INS agents to do the "counting"?
Only 12 million illegals... There's at least 10 million along the area of the 7 train.
"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." - Amendment XIV, Section 2
Note, the basis of representation is not the number of CITIZENS in a state, but the number of INHABITANTS. Article I, Section 2 requires Congress to take a census every ten years. Unless we're going to define illegal immigrants as "Indians not taxed" - which would be a stretch - the Census Bureau is constitutionally required to make every effort to count every inhabitant of every state.
Yes and back when that was written, everyone in the States were citizens or here legally.
Yes and back when that was written, everyone in the States were citizens or here legally.
Precisely!
" Taxpayer said...
It makes perfect sense that an illegal alien occupying the white house by lying wants to now count illegal aliens to bolster the illegal occupation."
Oh brother..another "birther" idiot!
You really have exposed your moronic self this time.
---------------------
Quoting that shitrag The Post:
"So congressional Democrats and the White House are more than happy to see voting power shift to these new rotten boroughs."
You read that -"rotten borough" Queens..that is what the GOP thinks of you.
Never mind that illegals can't register to vote (alot more difficult than when I registered in 1975) these vile partisans just want to scare us when they see the overall demographics and rising EDUCATION of Americans are slowly dumping the GOP's empty suits: Palin etc.
Don't take this garbage rag seriously.
Lino
Yes, because having a one party system has done wonders for NYC and soon - NY State!
Yes and back when that was written, everyone in the States were citizens or here legally.
Or black.
Look, if you're going to consider the Constitution of the US obsolete, then you're playing a whole different game than most of the rest of us.
Doesn't mention excluding blacks. And there were free blacks in this country back then as well. So there goes that argument.
Queens Crapper: Yes and back when that was written, everyone in the States were citizens or here legally.
Well, here "legally" inasmuch as there were few laws regarding immigration. According to Visa2003.com (and there are plenty of other sources which more or less report the same thing):
The first naturalization law in the United States was the 1795 Naturalization Act which restricted citizenship to "free white persons" who had resided in the country for five years. The next significant change in the law came in 1870, when the law was broadened to allow both Whites and African-Americans, though Asians were still excluded from citizenship. Immigration was otherwise unlimited.
It's very easy to have no illegal immigrants when there are no laws regulating immigration. If we were to revert to that state today we, too, would suddenly have no illegal immigrants.
Now let's review what everyone should have learned in high school: the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 in order to settle some outstanding issues left over from the Civil War, chiefly the legal and political status of blacks, most of them newly freed slaves. Regardless, though, of when or why it was written it's still the Supreme Law of the Land today and its provisions have to be adhered to until and unless 2/3 of both House of Congress and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, or ratifying conventions in 3/4 of the states, decide otherwise. Once again, in trying to enumerate the illegals Congress and the President are doing no more and no less than following the clear dictates of the Constitution they're sworn to uphold.
A problem at least as serious as this is the disenfranchisement of convicted felons. No one would argue that they should have the right to vote while serving their sentences (well, no one in this country would argue that - in places like Australia convict voting is the norm, and it's considered to have many social benefits) but in many states the ban is for life, and in others the right to vote can only be restored through a long and arduous legal process. This is entirely constitutional but it creates a situation exactly like the one the Post decries in the case of illegal immigrants. Only the disenfranchised are fellow citizens.
In New York most of our prisons are upstate but most of the prisoners come from downstate. Prisoners are counted as residents of the districts where their prisons are located, but of course they can't vote. The upshot is that upstate is somewhat overrepresented in Congress, and downstate slightly underrepresented. It's a hell of a way to run a democracy - I wonder why the Post never raises its editorial voice in protest?
Now, the Post offers no evidence for its contention that citizen voters in districts with large illegal populations generally vote Democratic. But even if that were true - and I don't know if it really is or isn't - why is the GOP ceding all those votes to the Democrats? Why not, say, campaign for them? It seems to me a tacit admission that the GOP has absolutely nothing to offer the tired, the poor, the huddled masses. Surprise surprise.
" Queens Crapper said...
Yes, because having a one party system has done wonders for NYC and soon - NY State!"
I am not sure of what you mean here.
NYC has had 16 years of (nominally) republican Mayors, we endured 12 years of that moronic puppet Potaki.
Not failing to mention that the State was in gop hands since 1965..great job they did upstate...
The only reason the entire northeast is now slowly becoming a gop-free zone is that the repub's have aligned themselves with an increasingly reactionary right wing that doesn't suit most of this electorate.
Most of the moderate Republicans such a Bill Green have either aged out or been purged for being too conciliatory.
Demographics aren't the only reason for a moribund gop in the N.E.
They ran Nassau, Suffolk and all of upstate NY into the ground..why bother with them anymore.
Thanks for proving my point.
NYC is a mess after decades of Democrats.
NYS is a mess after decades of Republicans, which may soon become decades of Democrats. I am talking about both branches of the government being under the control of the same party.
Giuliani and Bloomberg are Dems no matter what they call themselves.
"It's very easy to have no illegal immigrants when there are no laws regulating immigration. If we were to revert to that state today we, too, would suddenly have no illegal immigrants."
Wow, what a genius you are! And we should not limit immigration so the entire world could come here and reap the benefits of being American!
Anonymous: Wow, what a genius you are! And we should not limit immigration so the entire world could come here and reap the benefits of being American!
Maybe you didn't read everything that went before or just couldn't understand it but the discussion was about Crapper's contention that back in the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment was framed and ratified, "everyone in the States were citizens or here legally." Which is more or less true but only because the borders were basically open to whoever wanted to enter the country and not because our forefathers were more virtuous or law abiding than the current generation. (Serious restrictions on who could enter only began to be put into place starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and it wasn't until the 1920s that a numeric limit was introduced.) If there had been the same restrictions then that there are now there would have been a huge population of illegals. Conversely, if we were to revert to the system (or lack thereof) that was in place for most of the 19th Century there would be no illegals in the country. I’m not advocating that; I’m merely stating it as a fact.
I know this is difficult for a person of limited intelligence such as yourself to understand but if you squint, think real hard, ask your betters to explain it to you, maybe you’ll eventually get it.
First of all that was uncalled for.
Second of all, who cares?
We don't want to be overrun with illegals. This extra effort is being exerted because the current administration wants them to become citizens. We have certain rights in this country because we have citizenship. Let's not give them away.
Anonymous: First of all that was uncalled for.
Well, if you or your fellow nameless wonder want to refer to me sarcastically as a genius after completely misreading what I've written I will point out how you (or they) completely misread what I had written. Them's the breaks.
Anonymous: This extra effort is being exerted because the current administration wants them to become citizens.
As I've explained twice now the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES requires an actual enumeration of ALL the inhabitants of each state, citizens and non-citizens alike. If Congress and the President didn't make a good faith effort to do so they would be derelict in their duty.
I see nothing in the article that indicates that this is part of a dastardly plot to grant citizenship to millions of illegals. The problem that the Post has with this is actually just the opposite - these people are NOT becoming citizens and so are not gaining the right to vote, and yet (as per the Constitution) their bodies are being counted for representation in Congress, which means that those of their neighbors who CAN vote effectivly have more influence on who gets elected than citizens in districts with fewer illegals where more inhabitants can vote. (Funny, this is precisely the problem with the Electoral College. Talk about rotten boroughs, there are no rottener ones than Wyoming, say, or Alaska - where votes are worth quite a bit more than votes in New York or California or Texas. Remember, that's exactly how we first got saddled with that son of a bitch Bush in 2000. Yet I don't think I've ever seen the Post decry that particular bit of constitutional counterdemocracy.)
If these people DID become citizens and were accepted as equal members of our polity and could vote the supposed dilution of representation would, by definition, disappear.
Anonymous: We have certain rights in this country because we have citizenship. Let's not give them away.
I don't see how rights are a zero sum game. If you have a right to vote, express yourself in public, practice your religion, be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, etc. that's not diminished one iota by someone else enjoying those same rights.
Or maybe you'd like to go back to the Naturalization Act of 1795 and only allow free whites to become citizens?
"I don't see how rights are a zero sum game. If you have a right to vote, express yourself in public, practice your religion, be free from arbitrary arrest and detention, etc. that's not diminished one iota by someone else enjoying those same rights."
How lovely and idealistic. And giving people free services that are paid for with citizen dollars is not a zero sum game.
Anonymous: How lovely and idealistic. And giving people free services that are paid for with citizen dollars is not a zero sum game.
Anonymous, dearie, you need to work on your reading comprehension. You'll notice that the rights I mentioned - the right to vote, freedom of speech and religion, security in one's person - involve few social services or citizen dollars.
But - since you brought it up: yes, I do believe in society providing certain services to its members. Not for any bleeding heart reasons but out of sheer pragmatism. Society works better, the country is stronger if the people are educated. Since not everyone can afford that, public schools have been established and everyone pays for them through their taxes - even people like me who have no children. Society works better, the country is stronger if houses and businesses are not allowed to burn down when there are fires. Since not everyone is versed in the art of firefighting, nor could they all afford to call in private contractors to put out fires, municipal fire departments have been established and everyone pays for them through their taxes. Society works better, the country is stronger when law and order is maintained. Since not everyone can afford to hire their own private security forces, police departments have been established and everyone pays for them through their taxes. Society works better, the country is stronger when people and goods can move safely and efficiently from place to place. Since not everyone can afford to build their own highways, systems of roads have been constructed and made available for public use and everyone pays for them through their taxes. Society works better, the country is stronger when the elderly, the infirm, the down-on-their-luck aren't cast out into the streets to starve. Since no one knows what the future may hold for them a very modest social safety net has been built over the years to protect the people from complete destitution, and everyone pays for it through their taxes. You can quibble with details and priorities - do we fund cops or schools? - but the grand program of cooperation, providing for each other, is what civilization is all about. Without it we're naked savages, each the mortal enemy of the other. I know you're not a very bright person, Anonymous, but surely you can understand that, can't you?
When those people are here legally, I have no problem with providing services. That's what taxation is for. There's no sense in allowing people to live here who don't pay into the system they benefit from.
Well, there are very few people who can avoid paying taxes - and they mostly work on Wall Street!
recent tax cheats:mayor d.dinkins,cong.c. rangel, a.sharpton,w.nelson,former senator daschel ,dem. south dakota, SEC.of U.S. TREASURY,GEITNER. ETC. ETC.ETC.
Post a Comment