, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There are well-known ways that Americans are stripped of their voting rights, both historically and recently. These have included property requirements; gender and race restrictions; intimidation (including murder); poll tax; arbitrary literacy tests (including how many soap bubbles in a bar of Ivory soap); gerry-mandering; reducing numbers of polling stations; purging voter rolls; etc. However, few talk about the fact that counting non-citizens – whether legal or illegal – when determining Congressional districts strips Americans of their vote. Historically, such a system gave slave states disproportionate power in the US Congress.

The problem raised by including illegal aliens in the reapportionment base is not merely that some states lose seats in the House of Representatives while others gain.26 Including illegal aliens also affects individual citizens’ rights, creating inequality of voting power between citizens in districts with large numbers of illegal aliens and citizens who live in districts with small numbers of illegal aliens. A numerical example may be helpful. Suppose there are two congressional districts, A and B, each consisting of 10,000 people. 2 7 District A is made up of 8,000 voting citizens and 2,000 illegal aliens. District B contains 10,000 voting citizens and no illegal aliens. The vote of a citizen in district A is worth more than that of a citizen in district B.28 More important, citizens in district A have a greater representation in Congress than citizens in District B. The Constitution, however, requires that the voting power and representation of citizens must be equal.29” See: Dennis L. Murphy, “The Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from the Reapportionment Base: A Question of Representation,”41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 969 (1991) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol41/iss3/20

And, in fact, since the number of US Congressional seats is fixed, the more immigrants allowed, period, the less one vote matters. If you live in a “democratic” country with a small population, you and your vote count more, than in a country with a large population. The US population has almost doubled since the Voting Rights Act, meaning that African-Americans were given the right to vote, but the value of their vote has been constantlly diluted, along with that of all other Americans.

Thus, Trump’s memo doesn’t go far enough:
President Trump is issuing a memorandum clarifying that illegal aliens are not to be included for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census… Allowing illegal aliens to be counted for the purpose of apportionment could also create perverse incentives – such as potentially rewarding states that encourage violations of Federal immigration law – that would undermine our system of government.” (White House news release)

The ideal count for apportionment would be adult citizens. Since a citizenship question wasn’t allowed on the 2020 census, the best way forward is apportionment based on registered voters. If this were the case, then maybe there would be a push to register more citizens to vote.

Stupid Senator Schumer can’t think of anything better than to call the memo racist, as though immigration status has a race. As usual, Schumer doesn’t differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants. VOA apparently didn’t bother to read the memo, either: https://www.voanews.com/usa/trump-signs-executive-order-excluding-undocumented-migrants-us-census Even if illegals were only “hispanic” – and this isn’t the case – it still wouldn’t be racist, because “hispanic” isn’t a race. In fact, it’s not really an ethnicity, either. As defined, Mitt Romney is “hispanic”, even though he is English, Scots, and German, because his father was born in Mexico. Germans, Irish, Italians born in Latin America are “hispanic” as are Spaniards from Spain.

If the Dem-wits continue to say something stupid each time Trump says or does something that is somewhat intelligent, then they can expect to lose in November.

From an ACLU submission re the citizenship question: “In August 2015, Dr. Hofeller was commissioned by the “principal” of the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website, to study the “practicality” and “political and demographic effects” of using citizen voting age population (“CVAP”) in lieu of total population (“TPOP”) to achieve equal population in redistricting. Exs. C, D. Dr. Hofeller wrote that use of CVAP in redistricting was infeasible “[w]ithout a question on citizenship being included on the 2020 Decennial Census questionnaire.” Ex. D at 8. He explained that “[e]ven if a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court was sympathetic to the use of CVAP” in “redistricting or reapportionment,” the Court was unlikely to permit such usage based on citizenship data from the ACS, and would instead require “an actual full enumeration” on the 2020 Decennial Census. Id. at 3. Dr. Hofeller also advised that if a citizenship question were added to the 2020 Census to facilitate use of CVAP in redistricting, the results “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,” “would clearly be a disadvantage for the Democrats,” and would “provoke a high degree of resistance from Democrats and the major minority groups in the nation.” Id. at 7, 9“. (ACLU filing : Case 1:18-cv-02921-JMF Document 587 Filed 05/30/19 Page 2 of 4 ) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-966/101439/20190530142417722_2019.05.30%20NYIC%20Respondents%20Notice%20of%20Filing%20–%20Final.pdf
Basically the ACLU is recognizing that the US is still majority non-hispanic and thinks that this is wrong somehow for citizens to have rights in their own country. The ACLU apparently believes that citizens will favor Republicans and consider that bad, so went to the Supreme Court. Non-hispanic African Americans are still a major minority group and they also don’t benefit from losing their vote/voice/representatives due to illegal (or legal) immigrants.

The memo is about Congressional reapportionment. This is related to Presidential electors, too.

President Donald J. Trump Is Taking Action to Ensure American Citizens Receive Proper Representation in Congress
Issued on: July 21, 2020
We will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in Congress.

President Donald J. Trump
PROTECTING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY: President Donald J. Trump is taking action to prevent illegal aliens from being counted in the 2020 census for the purpose of apportionment.

President Trump is issuing a memorandum clarifying that illegal aliens are not to be included for the purpose of apportionment of Representatives following the 2020 census.

This follows the President’s order directing the Federal government to collect the information needed to ensure that accurate citizenship data is compiled in connection with the census.

Giving congressional representation and political influence to illegal aliens – people who have blatantly disregarded our laws – would be a perversion of our democratic principles.

Allowing illegal aliens to be counted for the purpose of apportionment could also create perverse incentives – such as potentially rewarding states that encourage violations of Federal immigration law – that would undermine our system of government.

President Trump will never allow our democracy to be eroded by giving congressional representation to illegal aliens when the Constitution does not require it.

UPHOLDING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: Excluding illegal aliens for the purpose of apportionment reflects a better understanding of our Constitution and democratic principles.

The Constitution does not specifically define which persons must be included for the purposes of apportionment and requires only that Representatives be apportioned according to what has long been understood to mean the “inhabitants” of each State.

Under the law, Congress and the President are required to make judgments concerning which persons should be considered inhabitants of a State for the purpose of apportionment.

For example, people only temporarily in the United States, such as those only in the country for business or tourism, have long been excluded from this count.

Likewise, overseas military and other Federal personnel have at times been included in and excluded from the populations of states where they maintain homes of record.

As the Supreme Court recognized in Franklin v. Massachusetts, inclusion in the apportionment base may require “more than mere physical presence,” including “some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place.”

Failure to exclude illegal immigrants for the purposes of apportionment would have major ramifications and could cause some American citizens to be proportionally underrepresented.

Estimates suggest that one State – home to more than 2.2 million illegal aliens – could receive two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.

PRIORITIZING AMERICANS: President Trump is always working to put American citizens first.

After years of neglect, President Trump is restoring the rule of law, securing our border, and protecting our Nation’s communities.

The President is reversing disastrous trade deals that shipped our jobs overseas and is replacing them with better deals, like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

To give American workers first priority in our coronavirus recovery, the President has extended and expanded the suspension of certain visas through the end of the year.

The President is also ensuring that immigrants to our country are self-sufficient and do not strain American’s public welfare or healthcare systems.https://web.archive.org/web/20200721195031/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-action-ensure-american-citizens-receive-proper-representation-congress/
We don’t think there is any country in the world that doesn’t require immigrants to prove that they are self-supportive. He hasn’t gone far enough on that, either: “The President is also ensuring that immigrants to our country are self-sufficient and do not strain American’s public welfare or healthcare systems.

The Democratic Party has benefitted from the same strategy throughout its history. When it was the party of slavery, it benefitted from counting slaves, even though they weren’t allowed to vote. In the north, it was long the party of Democrat machine politics, which was operated by and pandered to immigrants. Pelosi’s father was a machine politician. Today, the Democratic Party in many states, and nationally, apparently benefits from counting illegal immigrants. Of course, they wish to enfranchise them with DACA and amnesty. Reagan’s amnesty in the mid 1980s only increased illegal immigration, as people were hopeful for another amnesty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986

Both Repubican and Democrat politicians are benefitting from counting legal immigrants and from out of control immigration. All Americans lose as their vote is diluted and devalued.

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[19] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.

Historian Garry Wills has speculated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800. Also, “slavery would have been excluded from Missouri … Jackson’s Indian removal policy would have failed … the Wilmot Proviso would have banned slavery in territories won from Mexico … the Kansas-Nebraska bill would have failed.”[19] While the Three-Fifths Compromise could be seen to favor Southern states because of their large slave populations, for example, the Connecticut Compromise tended to favor the Northern states (which were generally smaller). Support for the new Constitution rested on the balance of these sectional interests.[20]…“. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise