The question is asked



OK, Tom. I'm sitting here in amazement. I have just learned that congressional districts are apportioned based on total population, legal AND illegals. If we look looked at citizens only, it would result in a gain of about 20 House seats for repubs. I find that to be astonishing. Is that your understanding for this thing???

Art 1 Sec 2 says

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years

The clause originally excluded Native Americans and had a 3/5 clause for slaves. It says nothing about a citizen requirement . Then again it doesn't necessarily prohibit one either .

This is one of the main reasons Dems want open borders.

When conservatives are smeared as being racist advocates of a 'replacement theory ' the assumption is that the concern is minorities replacing whites . But the Dems hardly mask their desire to change the political landscape by flooding the nation with immigration.

The maximum number of Reps has been fixed at 435 since 1929. States that gain population faster than others get additional representatives after a census , and those whose populations grow less quickly or decline will lose representatives. This is also true of the total numbers of electors a state gets ;and how tax $ gets apportioned among the states .

Blue states have benefitted from this for years . There has been a bit of a reversal due to migration to red states . But it certainly explains why the Dems love the "sanctuary " concept .

(1) Greg Abbott on X: "Congresswoman from New York explains why she supports illegal immigration: "I need more people in my district JUST FOR REDISTRICTING PURPOSES.” These Democrats are looking out for themselves, not for America." / X (twitter.com) (https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1744897632651116550?lang=en)


Question ; when the framers authored the Constitution was there an assumption that a "person" was a citizen ? Would a congressional act defining a person counted has to be a citizen for the purpose of apportionment be constitutional ?

Case law favors the concept that every person in the state is counted for apportionment
It is my belief that Congress could act and it would survive judicial review.

Hagerty bill would put citizenship question on census, stop non-citizens being counted for redistricting | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-bill-would-put-citizenship-question-census-stop-non-citizens-being-counted-redistricting)

Obviously the above Congressional action ;besides surviving judicial review ,also requires surviving Senate filibuster requiring a super majority ,as well as a potential President veto .

I have no expectation that the status quo and Dem advantage of the process will change The best solution for the time being is still border control.

I doubt that the Fathers envisioned a situation where we would have millions and millions of people here who entered illegally, many at the tacit encouragement of local governments.

The Costitution says Congress shall conduct a census in "such manner as they shall by Law direct" (Article I, Section 2). But I don't see Congress acting on it in a divided country. Advantage Dems if the border is not closed .It may be too late.

We have an amendment process if we are bold enough to use it. If not then this slide continues .