New report: Mass migration gives Dem states 24 more seats, electoral votes in 2020

The one question nobody in Washington wants to ask in light of the greatest wave of mass migration in our history is: How much is too much? Quantities matter with most things in life.  Yet GOP elites are ignoring the mass migration to their own peril – and political demise, according to a new report.

The Center for Immigration Studies published new estimates of the 2020 census that show states won by President Trump wind up losing 24 seats in the House, corresponding with a loss of 24 electoral votes, thanks to mass migration and our policy of counting immigrants for reapportionment. In total, 26 seats are transferred as a result of factoring in total immigration, which includes those who became naturalized. If you just look at current immigrants who are not naturalized, they cause a transfer of 10 seats, thanks to the policy of counting them along with citizens in state reapportionment. To put that in perspective, Democrats control the house with a majority of only 21 seats, yet that majority is built on the policy of counting immigrants in the political process that should be controlled exclusively by citizens.

“Immigration profoundly redistributes political power at the federal level by changing the apportionment of House seats and votes in the Electoral College,” noted the report’s authors, Steven Camarota and Karen Zeigler. While we have counted legal immigrants in the reapportionment for much of our history, most of this distortion of citizen-based reapportionment occurred after the 1965 immigration bill. That is because the foreign-born population has grown roughly four and a half times as a result of that legislation, along with the growth of illegal immigration.

Here is the breakdown of which states are slated to gain or lose seats as a result of total immigration, which includes legal and illegal immigrants:

Ohio will have three fewer seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have had but for the presence of all immigrants and their minor children in other states. Michigan and Pennsylvania will have two fewer; and Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin will each have one fewer seat. California will have 11 more seats in 2020 than it otherwise would have; New York and Texas will have four more seats each; Florida will have three more seats; New Jersey will have two more seats; and Illinois and Massachusetts will each have one additional seat.

Overall, 19 of the total 26 seats transferred in reapportionment due to immigration will be awarded to “solid” Democrat states: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Texas is the only red state that stands to gain seats from immigration, but that is also partially why its shade of red is dulling rapidly.

What is perhaps the most insidious element of this is that illegal immigrants alone cause a transfer of five seats, three of them the result of this new census. “Illegal immigrants alone in 2020 will redistribute three seats, with Ohio, Alabama, and Minnesota each having one fewer seat than they otherwise would have had, while California, New York, and Texas will have one additional seat,” note the authors. This is how blue states get bigger and Texas becomes more liberal. Thus, as we continue to debate the prevalence of illegal aliens voting in our elections, this is a reminder that even those who don’t vote are essentially voting by redistributing and distorting our representation. Stolen sovereignty indeed.

Moreover, it should be noted that counting immigrants, and illegal immigrants in particular, in the Census, not only distorts reapportionment of electoral votes from one state to another, but also empowers urban blue areas over rural red areas in each state. So in Texas, for example, the windfall of more districts will be in the urban areas that contain all the immigrants. It also encourages more areas to be sanctuary cities, which in turn attracts more illegal immigrants, and then the cities reap the rewards of their violation of federal law by eating up a greater share of the state’s population, possibly resulting in an extra House seat.

While there is debate over the constitutional requirement for counting legal immigrants in the Census, I’ve noted before that there is no way counting illegal immigrants should be justified. By definition, our laws consider illegal aliens to be physically standing outside our boundaries. As John Noonan, former Ninth Circuit judge, said in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1985, “If there was an invading army on American soil, one does not suppose the Bureau of Census would count the enemy troops.”

It’s truly disappointing that this administration has decided to needlessly empower the courts to prevent it from even deciphering the number of citizens in each district and state, much less actually discounting illegal aliens. That is something that can and should be done executively and should have been fought over in the budget bill, which appropriates record funds to the Census Bureau without resolving this crisis that lies at the heart of our self-governance as a citizenry.

In the long run, Congress should pass Rep. Warren Davidson’s constitutional amendment, which would amend the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure that only citizens are counted in the Census. Even if one believes the Fourteenth Amendment requires that legal immigrants be counted, that provision was ratified at a time of low immigration. Now that we have record immigration with no end in sight, counting them in the census is almost as powerful as allowing them to vote, which dilutes the power of citizenship. The new CIS report is a powerful demonstration of just how strongly the voice of the citizen is diluted. Immigrants are essentially determining the outcome of elections and, by extension, the most contentious legislative issues when the public and the representatives are closely divided.

Counting immigrants in a census during a time of mass migration runs counter to the entire reason why immigration authority was transferred from the states to the federal government in 1789. The Founders didn’t want states to imprudently bring in more immigrants than were good for the country at large just to juice up their numbers at the expense of other states. As Justice Scalia said,“The naturalization power was given to Con­gress not to abrogate States’ power to exclude those they did not want, but to vindicate it” (U.S. v. Arizona).

Now we know: It is mainly the red states that stand to lose, while California and New York gain.   Yet, shockingly, many Republicans want more refugees. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee just added his name to the list of those requesting more refugees. Utah Governor Gary Hubert has already invited in more refugees. Utah and Tennessee have lost a seat each due to immigration, according to the CIS.

Here’s what is so perplexing about Republicans and their love for open borders and mass migration. All they seem to care about is getting in power and not accomplishing anything. Yet, paradoxically, if they continue to help Democrats on their immigration agenda, they will lose their ability to get in power and do nothing.

#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px}

/* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block.

We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */