citizenship

Congressional voting is skewed against citizens; fix needed

The 22 million non-citizens in this country (including many here illegally) are having a huge impact on election of representatives to the U.S. Congress.  This is because apportionment of House seats to each state and the drawing of House district lines are based on total population, not on citizenship.

A new report by the Center for Immigration Studies concludes:

“The profound impact of non-citizens can be seen in the 12 districts with the lowest share of citizens, which have roughly the same population of voting-age U.S. citizens as the nine districts with the highest citizen shares. This means Americans in the high-citizen districts have only nine representatives in Congress while those in the lowest-citizenship districts have 12, even though the combined populations of citizens are roughly equal.”

The rule about apportionment is based on the Constitution, section 2 of the 4th Amendment.  There has been much debate about its interpretation, and whether it’s rightfully applied.  The CIS study makes it obvious that the rule gives states with large numbers of non-citizens an advantage over other states in Congressional matters, which is unjust to citizens and harmful to the sovereignty of the nation.

Table 1 from an earlier CIS study shows, for each state, the apportionment of House seats after the 2020 Census, assuming different populations were not present.  Under each of the assumptions, the table shows that Oregon will have 6 Representatives, a gain of 1 seat over the current number. 

The source of Oregon’s general population increase is a mixture of migration of citizens from other states (32%)  and immigrants (30%), as reported here.  The large migration from other states is likely often related to excessive immigration and overcrowding in the other states.

“California is by far the more recent state of residence for those who move to Oregon, followed by Washington, Illinois, New York, and Texas. These are all states that have seen significant increases in their population, driven in large-part by immigration. Of those who moved to Oregon as an adult from another state, 44% said they did so ‘seeking a better quality of life.’”-- https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/numbersusa-study-population-growth-and-sprawl-oregon

As a FAIR blog comments: “Without a doubt this [Congressional apportionment] is one of the key reasons why the Democrats have been pushing – with the support or acquiescence of cheap labor corporatist Republicans – open borders and mass immigration. After all, during the 2018 midterm elections, almost 90 percent of House districts with a foreign-born population above the national average were won by Democrats. …

“… A persuasive case can be made that the Department of Commerce – which is responsible for conducting the census – can indeed exclude illegal aliens from the census population count (and that the Constitution did not mean for them to be included in the first place). Unfortunately, the DOC has so far refused to do so, for which it was sued by the state of Alabama and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL). Alabama certainly had a good reason to sue, for counting illegal aliens would deprive it of a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. The bottom line is that states with small foreign-born/non-citizen populations, and in particular those with less illegal alien inhabitants, should not be punished by losing representation.”    

The Impact of Legal and Illegal Immigration on the Apportionment of Seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2020

Under current policy all persons — not just citizens — are included in the population count when apportioning seats to states in the U.S. House of Representatives and for votes in the Electoral College, which is based on House seats. Although we focus on the next census in 2020, the impact of immigration has been building for decades as the number of people settling in the country has increased dramatically. This report examines the cumulative impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on the apportionment of House seats; this is not an analysis of the impact of immigration only since the previous census. Apportionment is a zero-sum system; by adding more population to some states rather than others, immigration will continue to significantly redistribute political power in Washington.. .

Legislators’ negligence on driver licenses backfires

OFIR has fought long and hard against issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens and in favor of Oregon becoming compliant with the Real ID Act.

“The REAL ID Act, passed by Congress in 2005, enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.  The Act established minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver’s licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act’s minimum standards.” – Department of Homeland Security.

Now, 15 years after the Act was passed, the deadline looms, on Oct. 1, for states to comply, or its citizens lose convenient access to air travel.

Not so surprisingly, the Oregon legislature and our governor have blocked efforts to pass the necessary Real ID measures. In essence, they have been and still are, putting the interests of illegal aliens above the safety and well-being of citizens.   Now citizens face an impossible rush to get Real ID compliant i.d.   Take a moment to read the article that appeared in Sunday’s Oregonian.

Editorial: Oregonians pay the price for legislators’ Real ID protest

Sunday, January 26, 2020  -  By The Oregonian Editorial Board

Boy, Oregon legislators sure showed the federal government a thing or two, didn’t they?

Even though Congress mandated 15 years ago that states adopt stricter standards for issuing driver’s licenses, Oregon lawmakers refused for years to spend a dime of state money to comply with the Real ID Act. Instead, the state sought extensions from the federal government and largely ignored the upgrade requirements, arguing that the federal government should pay for them. But in 2017, Oregon legislators finally gave in and authorized spending to meet the requirements. Oregon, which is poised to begin issuing the federally-approved licenses in July, will likely be, the last in the country to come into compliance with the law.

Legislators may feel their futile protest was a virtuous one, but Oregonians are the ones paying the price. Starting Oct. 1, all air travelers must have either a Real ID-compliant driver’s license, a passport or passport card in order to fly in the United States. Unfortunately, because the state won’t start issuing those new licenses until July 6, there’s not nearly enough time for it to meet expected demand before the Oct. 1 deadline. As The Oregonian/OregonLive’s Andrew Theen reported, the state typically issues 600,000 to 700,000 renewals and replacement cards in an entire year. But there are about 3.25 million Oregonians with drivers’ licenses that won’t meet the new standard. …

Read the rest of the editorial here.

Administration looks to end birthright tourism

On January 21st, the Trump administration announced it would begin cracking down on the practice of birth tourism. A newly published rule directs consular employees at the State Department to deny tourist visas to pregnant women who have no legitimate reason for visiting the United States other than to give birth. 

Birth tourism is a booming underground industry in the United States due to our current interpretation of birthright citizenship. Federal agents arrested three people last year in California for operating a multimillion-dollar birth tourism business. These businesses draw foreign nationals to the United States in order to procure U.S. citizenship for their unborn children. Citizen children can sponsor their parents for a green card when they turn 21. . .

Battle over a Census question is more important than you might think

Should illegal aliens have a major influence on who gets elected to Congress?  Most citizens would probably say No.

But illegal alien advocates and open-borders enthusiasts say Yes.

Population figures reported in the decennial Censuses determine apportionment of seats in Congress.  Too, each state’s electoral vote in presidential elections is tied to the number of seats it has in the House of Representatives.  So accurate figures on the number of citizens are very important.

Pres. Trump’s Secretary of Commerce, the agency which directs the Census Bureau, proposes to reinstate a question in the 2020 Census asking whether respondents are U.S. citizens.   Prior decennial census surveys of the U.S. consistently asked citizenship questions up until 1950.  

The 2020 Census would ask: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

Oregon’s Attorney General Rosenbaum joined a lawsuit by several states to block inclusion of the question. The lawsuit was announced soon after California had also sued to block inclusion of the question, and needless to say, Rosenbaum did not ask Oregon citizens what they think.

Kansas’ Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a lawyer with expertise in immigration matters, sheds light on the subject in an interesting Breitbart article posted recently.  Two excerpts:

“Counting illegal aliens allows a state with millions of illegal aliens to unfairly inflate the number of congressional seats and electoral votes it has. Indeed, if the leadership of the state has little regard for the rule of law – as is the case in California – it creates a perverse incentive for the lawless state to invite more illegal aliens to come in. …

“ … California’s arguments are weak, and the lawsuit is a loser. The federal government will prevail, if not in the district court, then on appeal. But the ferocity of the backlash from the Left demonstrates just how important the citizenship question is. America’s willful ignorance concerning the number of citizens and the number of aliens in the country must end.”

Subscribe to RSS - citizenship