Currently, the 2010 Census is set to count illegal immigrants in its census data.
Republicans claim to want a “second count” of citizens only, to be used for “apportionment purposes,” so that illegal immigrant tallies aren’t used to swell the ranks of Blue states like NY and California.
That’s a coy plan on their parts, because no matter which way the Census counts, the GOP wins.
That is More Northern Blue States will lose seats and More Southern Red or at least Purple States will gain.
How so?
First, according to the "Connecticut State Data Center,” (http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/Reports/CtSDC_2010Reapportionment_Final_2007sept19.pdf) if Congressional seats are apportioned according to a 2010 U.S. Census that counts illegal immigrants, five states would lose House seats. Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan would each lose one seat; and Ohio and New York would both lose two seats. All, except Ohio (a Purple state) are solidly Blue states.
Three states would gain seats. Arizona and Texas would each gain two seats, and Florida would gain three. All other states would remain the same.
If illegal immigrants were excluded from the census count, only four states would lose seats - New York, New Jersey, and Ohio would each lose one, and California would lose two. Four states would gain seats, with one going to each of Montana, Arizona, and Texas, while Florida would pick up two seats. The GOP would actually fare worse!
According to the CSDC, “When undocumented populations are counted, Arizona (+2), Florida (+3), and Texas (+2) gain a total of seven seats. These seven seats come at the expense of Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Missouri (-1), New York (-2), and Ohio (-2), which lose a total of seven seats.
“California, Montana, and New Jersey do not gain seats when undocumented populations are counted.
“However, these states lose seats when undocumented populations are not counted.
When the count excludes the undocumented population, Arizona (+1), Florida (+2), and Texas (+1) still gain seats. However, in this scenario, total seat gain is only four – in contrast to the previous gain of seven.”
http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/Reports/CtSDC_2010Reapportionment_Final_2007sept19.pdf
So, in counting illegal immigrants in the census, some solid-blue Democratic states would lose a total of four House members, as well as three Reps from some mixed (or "purple") states, while solidly Texas would gain two. Not only that, but the two “fairly even states,” Florida and Arizona, which would gain a total of five House seats, are currently run by Republicans.
That appears to be a huge advantage for the GOP, especially since the Republican Governors in Florida and Arizona will have a LOT to say about how the districts in those states are apportioned.
If you don't count immigrants, three solidly blue states would still lose the same four Reps, and purple Ohio would lose one, as two red states would gain the same two Reps, and those same two Republican-led purple states (Arizona and Florida) would gain three Reps.
In both cases, red states are up at least two Representatives, while blue states are down four Reps, and the rest migrate between various “purple” states (most notably Arizona and Florida) that currently have Republican Governors in place through 2010 and Conservative voting majorities in place.
All of this just seems to be more of the “gamesmanship” over the issue of illegal immigration.
Ironically enough, BOTH Moderate/Country-Club Republicans and Liberal Democrats support some form of Amnesty or pathway to citizenship for those already here, while BOTH Conservative Democrats and Republicans oppose Amnesty and want the immigration laws of the land enforced.
Ironically enough, and as usual, at least the Country-Club Republicans have a logical rationale for their stance, summed up in two words, “CHEAP LABOR.” The Moderate Republicans would rather keep the illegal immigrants here illegal, for as long as possible, so that they’ll continue to work cheap, just as they’re more than happy to count them for apportionment, as that appears as though it’s going to transition more House seats FROM Blue districts to Red ones.
The hapless Liberal Democrats can’t seem to win for losing!
As it turns out, not only will counting illegal immigrants help speed up the “Reddening” of the House of Representatives, when Hispanic and Asian illegal immigrants become citizens, most are devoutly religious, entrepreneurial minded and trend Right in their voting habits, as well.
Go figure.
I used to consider myself a democrat, but have not voted for a democrat since the Jimmy Carter fiasco. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid will turn people away from the democrats the way Carter did.
ReplyDeleteI would hope so jlue, as I lived through the Carter debacle.
ReplyDeleteBut look what the media did when Reagan came in and turned Carter's Keynesian implosion around virtually overnight with his Supply Side policies - began noticing homelessness, a problem that began with the deinstitutionalization started by liberals in the 1960s and accelerated in the 1970s...
The media is complicit in rallying support for failed Keynesian policies and for bashing any and all market-based solutions.
Even now, G W Bush is assailed as a "free market President," when he was anything but.
He worked well with DeLay and Hastert the two GOP "anti-Gingrich's" hell-bent on dismantling the "Gingrich Revolution" that brought the GOP to power in the mid-1990s.
G W Bush was as Keynesian as his Dad, which is to say, as Keynesian as Richard Nixon. Bush's overspending led to the current hyper-overspending by an even more reckless Democratic Keynesian, Barack Obama....but the media would have people believe that Obama's policies have "veered away from Bush's," when they've followed them completely in almost every way!
This period is looking more and more like the 1970s every day, with G W Bush playing Richard Nixon and Barack Obama playing Jimmy Carter.
For that reason, (1) I think the worst (economically) is yet to come and (2) I fear that this time the UNDOING, as well as the rebuilding will be an even bigger job....something the Liberals are hoping for, as it may make it virtually impossible for a Supply Sider to makeover the economy before the public loses confidence.
I KNOW I'm right about the first part, though I hope I'm wrong on the second.