Avatar feed
Responses: 2
SGT English/Language Arts Teacher
1
1
0
Members of my family have been here 400 years. I wonder if they showed their papers?
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Casey O'Mally
0
0
0
I philosophically agree with the concept of removing the count of ILLEGAL immigrants (not naturalized citizens, green card holders, temporary visa holders, etc.) from apportionment counts. Allowing them in creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states. These states can artificially inflate their population to have more power to decide federal law and Presidential elections.

(As a side note, also removing them from the count to determine federal spending I personally believe would give states a great incentive to cooperate with federal law enforcement to secure the border, enforce employment laws, and identify and remove illegal aliens. Sanctuary cities and sanctuary states would, I believe, become a thing of the past as these locations had to support those populations WITHOUT the benefit of federal dollars.)

However... while I agree philosophically with removing illegal immigrants from apportionment, the Constitution is very clear in its requirement to enumerate the "whole number" of persons, not just the number of LEGAL persons. If we count prisoners (which we do), we have to count illegal immigrants. I would support a Constitutional Amendment to change the status quo, but without such and Amendment, they must be counted.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close