Illegal Immigrants effecting the Electoral College

I wasn't aware of this but illegal immigrants are counted in the census which dictates how electoral college votes are distributed. A state like California with a lot of illegal immigrants gets an inflated number of electoral college votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

As required by Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census, which allocates to each state its congressional seats and Electoral College votes, is based on a count of all people who live in the United States, citizens and noncitizens alike — or as the Constitution phrases it, “the whole number of persons in each state.” That means millions of noncitizens who are ineligible to vote are included in Electoral College calculations, and that benefits some states over others. Most of these noncitizens are here legally; however, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about 45 percent of noncitizens are undocumented immigrants.

As soon as they find out they now qualify for "in-state" tuition rates they will be heading to MD. Sorry, but you legal US citizens that do not live in MD get to pay more than the illegals.

Richard S. wrote:

As required by Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census, which allocates to each state its congressional seats and Electoral College votes, is based on a count of all people who live in the United States, citizens and noncitizens alike — or as the Constitution phrases it, “the whole number of persons in each state.” That means millions of noncitizens who are ineligible to vote are included in Electoral College calculations, and that benefits some states over others.

Interesting. But what conclusion do we draw? That this is good? That this is bad? That we should be pissed off that we have a Constitution? That we should amend it? That we should ignore it? That the framers of the Constitution intended this? Or would have written it differently if they had realized the implications? That it contradicts the principle of one man one vote? That it made sense because there were lots of present and expected immigrants, who were likely to become full citizens? That we should be mad at illegal aliens? That we should be thankful for illegal aliens if we live in one of the states that is "benefited"? I think you could argue plausibly for a "yes" or "no" answer to any of these questions.

rberq wrote:Interesting. But what conclusion do we draw? That this is good? That this is bad? That we should be pissed off that we have a Constitution? That we should amend it? That we should ignore it? That the framers of the Constitution intended this? Or would have written it differently if they had realized the implications? That it contradicts the principle of one man one vote? That it made sense because there were lots of present and expected immigrants, who were likely to become full citizens? That we should be mad at illegal aliens? That we should be thankful for illegal aliens if we live in one of the states that is "benefited"? I think you could argue plausibly for a "yes" or "no" answer to any of these questions.

Rberg I think the bigger issue is the House, the people in Congress should be there representing the interests of the citizens of this country. If you have an illegal population driving up the amount of representatives a state has they are skewing the representation a state has which is undeniably going to cater to them, see California for example. It certainly makes sense now why California would invite these people to come there.

If in the future this were to effect a Presidential election there is going to be some serious blowback.

If in the future this were to effect a Presidential election there is going to be some serious blowback. I'd sure like to hope so Richard

Richard S. wrote:... I think the bigger issue is the House ... If you have an illegal population driving up the amount of representatives a state has they are skewing the representation a state has ... see California for example.
If in the future this were to affect a Presidential election there is going to be some serious blowback.

Your answer to one of my questions seems to be, "Yes this is bad." In California, the numbers I can find say that at least 6 percent are illegal immigrants, which certainly is significant. Maybe in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was as yet little concept of "illegal" as opposed to "legal" immigrants? The amendment dealt directly and indirectly with the results of slavery -- the provision for "persons" as opposed to "citizens" was quite intentional, and was included with full realization that it would have an effect on politics and representation.

So come on, all you lovers of the Constitution, support it. These provisions were put there on purpose, for a reason. If you are going to pick on this one piece just because it seems to have a temporary effect that you don't like, then you have to allow OTHER people to pick on the parts THEY don't like.

jpete wrote:It's the concept of "anchor babies" I abhor.

Don't change the subject.

Yeah, God knows we don't want no shootin from the hip on all that BS

sorry but bob is a typical clueless moral high ground liberal pontificating from his rural all white neighborhood again. ie he could see what i see every day in nj he might have a little more concern for the facts. i live near many communities that have been completely latinized. no assimilisation into american culture and the willful intent to have as many anchor babies as humanly possible.

I hear that Dan - nearly every city in MA is headed that way as well.