Spring Break
Illegal immigration affects the electoral votes
By Daniel Lumetta, The Daily Reveille
Issue date: 9/25/08 Section: Opinion
Illegal immigration played a significant role in the redistribution of seats in the past. In 1990, 12 seats were redistributed, and in 2000, 16 seats were redistributed. Louisiana was one of the states adversely affected. In 2000, four states either lost a seat or didn't gain a seat they otherwise would have, and five states had one seat fewer than they otherwise would have.
Five states actually gained seats because of illegal aliens. Nine redistributed seats went to California alone.
These non-citizens also change the landscape of the electoral map because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
The Federation for Immigration Reform, which twice led unsuccessful campaigns to remove illegal immigrants from the process of apportionment, reported the 2004 election benefited Kerry with a net gain of two Electoral College votes.
Though the results were insignificant in that particular race, the reapportionment of seats caused by illegal aliens has affected the past two presidential elections and will continue to do so in the future.
This doesn't mean illegal aliens are the winners. Voters living in high-immigration districts consequently have much more influence than those living in low-immigration districts. Because they play no part in political life, illegals are being exploited to increase the power of voters living in high-immigration districts. This unfairly shifts seats from states all over the country to states mostly found in the Southwest.
CIS contends that reapportionment is a zero-sum game and concludes that excluding illegal immigrants from apportionment is highly unlikely because of opposition from states that benefit politically from illegal immigration.
The only solution appears to be the enforcement of stronger illegal immigration regulations. As far as apportionment reform is concerned, that duty might fall into the hands of the aforementioned swing voters of the future.
A wise man once said, "People get the government they deserve."
I say, "People deserve the government they tolerate."
Five states actually gained seats because of illegal aliens. Nine redistributed seats went to California alone.
These non-citizens also change the landscape of the electoral map because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.
The Federation for Immigration Reform, which twice led unsuccessful campaigns to remove illegal immigrants from the process of apportionment, reported the 2004 election benefited Kerry with a net gain of two Electoral College votes.
Though the results were insignificant in that particular race, the reapportionment of seats caused by illegal aliens has affected the past two presidential elections and will continue to do so in the future.
This doesn't mean illegal aliens are the winners. Voters living in high-immigration districts consequently have much more influence than those living in low-immigration districts. Because they play no part in political life, illegals are being exploited to increase the power of voters living in high-immigration districts. This unfairly shifts seats from states all over the country to states mostly found in the Southwest.
CIS contends that reapportionment is a zero-sum game and concludes that excluding illegal immigrants from apportionment is highly unlikely because of opposition from states that benefit politically from illegal immigration.
The only solution appears to be the enforcement of stronger illegal immigration regulations. As far as apportionment reform is concerned, that duty might fall into the hands of the aforementioned swing voters of the future.
A wise man once said, "People get the government they deserve."
I say, "People deserve the government they tolerate."
Be the first to comment on this story