Illegal 2010 U.S. Census

[kazh]

Our Unconstitutional Census
California could get nine House seats it doesn’t deserve because illegal aliens will be counted in 2010. By JOHN S. BAKER AND ELLIOTT STONECIPHER
Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged.
...
According to the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey data (2007), states with a significant net gain in population by inclusion of noncitizens include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Texas.
...
California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. ... California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats .... Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.

Of course, other states lose out .... certain to lose one seat in the 2010 reapportionment are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania; states likely (though not certain) to lose a seat are Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio could lose a second seat.
...
The Census Bureau can of course collect whatever data Congress authorizes. But Congress must not permit the bureau to unconstitutionally redefine who are “We the People of the United States.”

Mr. Baker teaches constitutional law at Louisiana State University. Mr. Stonecipher is a Louisiana pollster and demographic analyst. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332950796281832.html
Pelosi wants more California companions in Congress.

[Gary Wright]

Yeah, not cool.

[Darth Chef]

Imagine that - more rigging of the system by the democrat party in order to try and solidify and make permanent their hold on power (which in the end is their first and foremost :qunq:principle:qunq:).

[independent]

I agree that we shouldn't count illegal residents for reapportionment. However, there is no constitutional directive that says that.

This is from Article 1, Clause 3 "The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall be law direct." That tells me that Congress makes the rules. I'd bet that this Congress will happily count illegals.

The WSJ article doesn't give any support for the "unconstitutional" claim.

[Rickson]

Make sure if you get the long census form you only fill out how many people live in your house...you do not have to list bank accounts, salary, etc.

Tell them to F* off.

It would be impossible to police this, we don't even know who is legal or illegal.

[The President]

Imagine that - more rigging of the system by the democrat party in order to try and solidify and make permanent their hold on power (which in the end is their first and foremost :qunq:principle:qunq:).
:qunq: The winner states seem to be less blue than the loser states. :qunq:

[Woodrow]

I agree that we shouldn't count illegal residents for reapportionment. However, there is no constitutional directive that says that.


Unless the illegal aliens are from India

Article 1 section 2 "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed ..."

[whisper]

14th Amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#APPORTIONMENT) 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.

Sorry, it sounds like counting all the people in a state, including the illegal aliens, is as the Constitution directed.

[MountainHawk]

14th Amendment:


Sorry, it sounds like counting all the people in a state, including the illegal aliens, is as the Constitution directed.
But the proportionment must be done based on an adjusted figure, which is based on eligibility to vote.

[whisper]

But the proportionment must be done based on an adjusted figure, which is based on eligibility to vote.

No, it doesn't say that:
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 adjustment only happens when eligible people to vote are denied the right to vote. Its a punishment for disfranchisement.

[MountainHawk]

No, it doesn't say that:


The adjustment only happens when eligible people to vote are denied the right to vote. Its a punishment for disfranchisement.
It's clear the intention of Congress is to base the apportionment on people eligible to vote.

[General Apathy]

It does make sense though to count illegal aliens. Illegal aliens take up a good portion of the space and resource that citizens do. Many many decisions besides congress allocation are made based on census review. But I agree it isn't fair to give California more reps

[Jokebama]

The adjustment only happens when eligible people to vote are denied the right to vote. Its a punishment for disfranchisement.Show me a state where people have not claimed they were disenfranchised.

[MountainHawk]

It does make sense though to count illegal aliens. Illegal aliens take up a good portion of the space and resource that citizens do. Many many decisions besides congress allocation are made based on census review. But I agree it isn't fair to give California more reps
Yeah. I think it's acually preferable to count the illegals. Cities need to know that they have 900,000 people living there, not 750,000 people living there legally. It affects basic things like transit scheduling, trash collection, traffic patterns, etc.


Just do th apportionment for Congress based only on those eligible to vote.

[General Apathy]

Show me a state where people have not claimed they were disenfranchised.

Wyoming

[General Apathy]

Yeah. I think it's acually preferable to count the illegals. Cities need to know that they have 900,000 people living there, not 750,000 people living there legally. It affects basic things like transit scheduling, trash collection, traffic patterns, etc.


Just do th apportionment for Congress based only on those eligible to vote.

so don't count felons? interesting

[Jokebama]

WyomingLots of illegal aliens there.

[General Apathy]

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants

[whisper]

It's clear the intention of Congress is to base the apportionment on people eligible to vote.

That is not the way the amendment was written. It specifically said people - not citizens.

[General Apathy]

Estimated number of Illegal Immigrants. Latest available data - 2000 Census. Eight other States --Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming --each had fewer than 2,500 estimated unauthorized residents in 1990 and 2000. The US Citizenship ad Immigration Services also highlights that the illegal immigrant population in America grows by approximatley a half a million each year. Taken into account, the current illegal immigrant population is between 9 and 11 million people.

So they are getting illegal immigrant data from the census? is that a question?

[MountainHawk]

That is not the way the amendment was written. It specifically said people - not citizens.
But then they exclude the only major group of people that were in the country and not citizens.

[whisper]

But then they exclude the only major group of people that were in the country and not citizens.

Yes, they did. This is the 14th amendment. What you're referring to happened in the 19th amendment.

[Ron Weasley]

It's clear the intention of Congress is to base the apportionment on people eligible to vote.
This is ugly, and I'm not in favor of changing congressional representation based on illegals, but originally slaves were counted as 3/5's of a person, and I'm sure that they weren't eligible to vote.

[MountainHawk]

Yes, they did. This is the 14th amendment. What you're referring to happened in the 19th amendment.
Um. No.


14th amendment "excluding Indians not taxed." They didn't want the Indian population to affect apportionment.

[whisper]

Um. No.


14th amendment "excluding Indians not taxed." They didn't want the Indian population to affect apportionment.

Oh - that was because they were viewed as citizens of a separate country. All Amerindians were granted citizenship in the U.S. in 1924, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.

[MountainHawk]

Oh - that was because they were viewed as citizens of a separate country. All Amerindians were granted citizenship in the U.S. in 1924, the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
Illegals are citizens of other countries too.

[whisper]

Illegals are citizens of other countries too.

Indian reservations weren't U.S. territory. They were citizens of other countries - in another country. Obviously, they wouldn't be counted. We don't count how many people are in Mexico for our census either. The illegals are citizens of other countries - in the U.S.

[Actuary321]

14th Amendment:


Sorry, it sounds like counting all the people in a state, including the illegal aliens, is as the Constitution directed.Utah argued last year that they should also count permenant residents who are temporarily outside the country and not being counted (missionaries serving in foreign countries). If they had gotten that, Utah would have gotten a 4th rep in congress instead of that seat going to NC who got to count their military people in foreign countries. This, and the fact that Utah would almost certainly have elected a republican, was the reason Utah was paired with DC in the drive to get DC a voting rep in congress.

[whisper]

Utah argued last year that they should also count permenant residents who are temporarily outside the country and not being counted (missionaries serving in foreign countries). If they had gotten that, Utah would have gotten a 4th rep in congress instead of that seat going to NC who got to count their military people in foreign countries. This, and the fact that Utah would almost certainly have elected a republican, was the reason Utah was paired with DC in the drive to get DC a voting rep in congress.

Were they "residents" (ie - did they maintain possession of their homes while they were away on mission), or did Utah make the assumption that when these missionaries returned they'd return back to Utah.

If its the 1st, I think they have a valid argument. If its the 2nd, I don't think they have a valid argument.

[Actuary321]

Virtually all of them remain as members/dependents in the households of their parents (usually 19-21 YO males and 21-22 YO females) Most are claimed as dependents on parents taxes and remain on parents health insurance.

But someone help me with the math these guys are using, please?


According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.
However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat). Using a similar projection, Texas would have 38 House members with noncitizens included. With only citizens counted, it would be entitled to 34 members.


308MM/435 = 708M
283MM/435 = 650M
37MM/708M = 52.25 not 57
37MM/650M = 56.92
31.25MM/708M = 44.14
31.25MM/650M = 48.07


So it looks like the authors used the total population of CA divided by the citizens per rep to determine the number of reps CA would get counting illegals. But if CA got to use the full 37MM count then the per rep number should be 708M which would only give CA 52 reps not 57. Am I wrong here?

[silverfox]

I thought they always counted illegals. It's just that many illegals refuse to participate in the census. I heard that the issue is that they are going to estimate the number of illegals instead of counting each individual.

[MountainHawk]

Virtually all of them remain as members/dependents in the households of their parents (usually 19-21 YO males and 21-22 YO females) Most are claimed as dependents on parents taxes and remain on parents health insurance.

But someone help me with the math these guys are using, please?




308MM/435 = 708M
283MM/435 = 650M
37MM/708M = 52.25 not 57
37MM/650M = 56.92
31.25MM/708M = 44.14
31.25MM/650M = 48.07


So it looks like the authors used the total population of CA divided by the citizens per rep to determine the number of reps CA would get counting illegals. But if CA got to use the full 37MM count then the per rep number should be 708M which would only give CA 52 reps not 57. Am I wrong here?
It's not that straightforward.

Here is the procedure:

http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html

[Incredible Hulctuary]

So it looks like the authors used the total population of CA divided by the citizens per rep to determine the number of reps CA would get counting illegals.
The paragraph you quoted mentioned "noncitizens", which are not the same as "illegals".

[Fish Actuary]

It's clear the intention of Congress is to base the apportionment on people eligible to vote.

In other words this is a non-issue (e.g. yes we're going to count the illegal aliens, but when it comes time to apportion congressional seats it will be best on the number of citizens rather than total population)?

[MountainHawk]

In other words this is a non-issue (e.g. yes we're going to count the illegal aliens, but when it comes time to apportion congressional seats it will be best on the number of citizens rather than total population)?
Apparently previous apportionments included the illegals, so I'm assuming there will be no change this time around.

[Fish Actuary]

Apparently previous apportionments included the illegals, so I'm assuming there will be no change this time around.

OK, I apparently misunderstood your statement.

Also, according to the question and answers (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/faq.html#Q2) page, both citizens and non-citizens are included in the total population used for the apportionment calculation. This seems to be contrary to the law, but is it really an issue with the census? With the stupidity of Bachmann talking about the census a month or two ago, it was noted that the census forms do track citizenship. Seeing as the census bureau knows the proportion of the population that is non-citizen in each census tract why not just do apportionment based on the number of citizens in each state rather than on the number of people? I'm puzzled as to why so many people are having a hissyfit about the census.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

The problem is that if they change the formula to exclude noncitizens, there will be winners and losers among the states, and when the potential losers fight they have inertia on their side.

[Fish Actuary]

The problem is that if they change the formula to exclude noncitizens, there will be winners and losers among the states, and when the potential losers fight they have inertia on their side.

Don't the potential winners just have to take it to (the supreme) court? It seems like the law would support them.

[Actuary321]

Virtually all of them remain as members/dependents in the households of their parents (usually 19-21 YO males and 21-22 YO females) Most are claimed as dependents on parents taxes and remain on parents health insurance.


SALT LAKE CITY — The U.S. Census Bureau has told Utah’s elected leaders it won’t count Mormon missionaries serving overseas in the nation’s next head count. Census Bureau officials, rejecting Utah’s lobbying efforts for the better part of a decade, say there’s no way to reliably count the overseas missionaries. Utah leaders say the omission cost the state an extra congressional seat in 2000, when the state fell just 857 people short of receiving the last available slot in the U.S. House.

The Census Bureau does count military and federal employees serving overseas, and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, says it should include Mormons on proselytizing missions. “The bottom line should still be fairness and accuracy,” Bishop said. “If we are currently counting some people abroad and not others, there is just no logic to that whatsoever.”

An experiment in counting Americans abroad in 2004 turned into a “colossal failure,” said Louis Kincannon, a former Census Bureau director under President Bill Clinton. Few Americans responded to an outreach program in three sample countries — Mexico, France and Kuwait. A government consulting firm, Election Data Services, estimates that 6 million Americans are living overseas. But federal officials say there’s no dependable way to track down citizens who move around and may not want to be found because they don’t want to pay U.S. taxes.

A review by the Government Accountability Office found that counting Americans overseas is impractical, and it suggested the Census Bureau abandon the effort. The bureau says overseas counts produce erratic results that could distort state-by-state counts. Census officials said that if Congress wants them to count all citizens overseas, it will have to enact legislation making it a requirement.

Utah sued the Census Bureau in 2001 in an attempt to get the military count thrown out, saying it unfairly benefited North Carolina, which claimed the 435th House seat a year earlier largely because of the state’s military bases, such as the U.S. Army’s Fort Bragg and the Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Utah’s claims and ruled the Census Bureau enjoys wide discretion on counting. In early June, Rep. Jim Matheson, DUtah, included a provision in a bill that would require the secretary of state, attorney general and the Census Bureau to study whether they could use passports to track citizens internationally. The legislation, however, has no effect on requirements for the 2010 Census.

What happens if I list my foreign missionary on the form?

[Ron Weasley]

I'm beginning to see why Ceasar Agustus sent out a decree requiring everyone return to their home land to be counted. Makes things easier for Ceasar.

[whisper]

I see Utah's position, but with the failure of the census to count foreign citizens - I can understand the census's position in rejecting the request. The military personal whereabouts are already known by the government.

The passport idea is not bad, and probably should be investigated.

[Ron Weasley]

The passport idea is not bad, and probably should be investigated.

How would you tell if a passport holder was not currently in the US, or if a passport holder died while traveling abroad?

[whisper]

How would you tell if a passport holder was not currently in the US, or if a passport holder died while traveling abroad?

You may be able to sync up the census returns and the passports, to avoid double counting. Death is always an issue, I don't think its material.

[Ron Weasley]

Death is always an issue, I don't think its material.

:lol:

Maybe you should post that on one of the death panel threads!

:lol:

[Fish Actuary]

Aren't U.S. passports valid for 10 years? How do you avoid double counting the people who move but don't update their passport address (obvious answer would to be consolidate government computer systems, but no one is willing to pay for that)?

[Actuary321]

How would you tell if a passport holder was not currently in the US, or if a passport holder died while traveling abroad?Wasn't there a thread about the ability to read the new passports radio signals? I am sure the NSA must have the satellite technology to pick them up from space. Problem solved. It is OK to spy on Americans as long as they are outside the US.

And I would bet the LDS church could give a better accounting of the missionaries location than the US government can. Can't speak for other religions. And this doesn't just make a difference to Utah, there are plenty of missionaries from other states as well, esp. ID, AZ and CA.