Sun Editorial:

Potential census nightmare

Congress should toss out proposal to amend House reapportionment process

Monday, Nov. 2, 2009 | 2:07 a.m.

Two Republican senators are seeking to change the way the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divvied up among the states, but their legislation smacks of partisan politics.

Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana and Robert Bennett of Utah would like to base the allocation of seats, which occurs every 10 years following the census, only on the number of U.S. citizens in each state. The current process, which relies on “the whole number of persons” in each state as provided under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, means that noncitizens are counted as well.

As reported recently by Timothy Pratt in the Las Vegas Sun, the proposal has the potential to diminish Nevada’s clout in Washington. Nevada, with an estimated 230,000 illegal immigrants, stands to gain a fourth House seat after the 2010 census, but that could be in jeopardy if noncitizens are not counted.

A larger problem with the legislation is that members of Congress, in dealing with issues and federal funding for programs, have to take into consideration the number of people in their districts who use roads, schools, hospitals, law enforcement resources and other services. That includes people who are not citizens.

Barring federal immigration policy that forces all illegal immigrants to leave the country, House members cannot effectively represent their districts if they simply ignore the impact of noncitizens. That is why those people should factor into reapportionment.

Vitter and Bennett would also create headaches for the census process by requiring questions about citizenship and immigration status. As the Sun reported, the government has printed 300 million forms for next year’s census. Those would have to be destroyed at tremendous cost to taxpayers.

Also, it would be impossible for census takers to verify the citizenship of the more than 300 million residents of this country, where we do not carry national identification cards.

There is also a good chance that many people, fearing reprisal, would choose not to participate in the census, and the problem of how to handle families made up of citizens and illegal immigrants.

This legislation is fatally flawed and should be rejected by Congress.

Discussion: 7 comments so far…

By fremmasmind

11/2/09 at 4:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Leave it up to Timmy boy to back the illegals again. Counting the illegals as citizens is just one more step in accepting them as citizens. Here they have been breaking federal laws for years and instead of deporting them we count them as citizens. Our government wants to add representation to the areas where they live to represent them? American politicians representing illegal aliens.
When american citizens break the laws they get punished. When the illegal aliens break federal laws they get counted as citizens, free hospital care, free education, jobs before we the people, etc.
When these federal census takers are walking the neighborhoods counting citizens they should be escorted by ICE with a laptop so they can access e-verify when they need to. I guess making sure the illegals have jobs is more important than the 13% of our Nevada citizens who are unemployed. O.K. lets hear it now from all of you sympathetic illegal backers now.
Save our citizens by sending the illegals home. Don't include them in the count, boot them out!
By JohnF

11/2/09 at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

fremmasmind,

This has nothing to do with the way you feel about illegal immigrants; it has everything to do with the rule of law.

This editorial clearly draws a distinction between "citizens" and the "whole number of persons." Nowhere does it suggest we treat illegal immigrants as citizens, nowhere does it suggest that illegal immigrants be granted the right to vote or to be exempt from our laws.

Census takers are not required by the consitution to count citizens only; they are required to count the "whole number of persons." Prior to the Civil War slaves were not citizens, nor were Native Americans, yet they were counted as part of the census.

The constitution does not specify that the people being counted be citizens. What Senators Vitter and Bennett would have us do is override the constitution by act of Congress.

The law does not allow this. If Senators Vitter and Bennett want this to be the law of the land they will first need to amend the constitution.
By boftx

11/2/09 at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

It is interesting to note that the 14th Ammendment specifically excludes Indians (native-Americans) who do not pay taxes from the census and it is implied that they were not US citizens. On that basis an argument could be made that illegal aliens, who also do not pay taxes and are not citizens, should be excluded from the census as well.

The phrase "whole number of persons" was probably a hold-over from the days of "3/5" and as such really had no meaning since a partial person did not exist anymore. One could draw a distinction between a non-citizen and a slave, prior to that time, as slaves were considered property and non-citizens would not have been.

Having said that, I believe that argument that a district can not be represented fairly without taking non-citzens into account is fallacious. If anything, the dis-regard of such persons would encourage districts to reduce the numbers thereof residing within the borders so that scarce monies would not be spent on them.

It should be borne in mind that the problems associated with illegal residence did not really exist until governments began offering social programs to the citizenry, hence the arise of so-called "anchor babies". Before that time such activities were primarily dealt with by private organizations and called "charity", which no one really wanted to accept as it carried a fair amount of social stigma with it. Today, the stigma is much less and an ever-growing number of people feel that such benefits are the "right" of all persons, and should be provided by governemnt and not privately.
By shawn2724

11/2/09 at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

First off, you neglected to mention the law was modified in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to include all native americans as full citizens regardless of tax-paying status.

You are also arguing a lot of very old issues. Should the government provide a social safety net - really is irrelevant at this point. No elected official will ever get rid of welfare, social security, medicaire, medicaid, food stamps, etc regardless of party.

I am also tired of the right wing argument that illegals never pay taxes. While sometimes true, many citizens that are below a certain wage don't pay taxes either - its a progressive tax system (in most states).

In Nevada of course our tax system is very regressive. Illegal immigrants essentially support the economy which is tourism based, and generates our tax revenue. They pay the same regressive sales tax the rest of us do, and if we (anyone in power in either party) wanted to do something about immigration, it could have been done years ago. It wasn't done, still hasn't been done, and never will be - so to penalize people we rely on and who come here only for a better life (as most of our ancestors did) is silly.
By boftx

11/2/09 at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

shawn2724 said:
"I am also tired of the right wing argument that illegals never pay taxes. While sometimes true, many citizens that are below a certain wage don't pay taxes either - its a progressive tax system (in most states)."

Is it safe to assume that most of the jobs held by illegals pay an amount that falls below that certain wage you alluded to above? If so, then no, they don't pay taxes. And when they do, they are doing so on what is effectively a stolen identity, which can cause serious tax problems for the legitimate owner of that social security number.

All I am asking for is citizens first. I have no objection to anyone wanting to become a citizen, but I do object to those who wish to live here and not live by our laws.

Do I think some laws are wrong? Of course, but they need to be changed at the request of the citizenry at large and not cater to special interest groups, be they corporate or ethnic.
By jajma

11/2/09 at 5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Let Vitter and Bennett have their way. You'll be paying taxes and not getting your fair share of federal money to pay for services/programs such as highways, roads, schools, hospitals, law enforcement resources,etc.
By BarryS

11/2/09 at 8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Have Vitter show us that his great state of Louisiana has no illegal immigrants. And, by the way, it is one of the "basket case" states always getting more federal aid than they pay in taxes. So, Vitter, put up or shut up, and stop living on the dole. Then, we'll take you seriously. Your party, and the great George Bush did nothing to stop or reverse the illegal immigrant "problem" for a long eight (8) years. BTW, as global warming erodes away Vitter's state, they should lose a senator, and reps. They have shrunk, and so should their representation.