Illegal Immigration costs citizens representation

Please read my posts on this thread and click on th links. Steve Elliott has also posted his comments on this issue here. Because there are some irrelevant posts that have been posted here (a couple are rather long,) Iam going back here (today is September 8th) so you can research this issue yourself. Please read the articles by Phyliss Schlafly and Daniel Weintraub as well as the original CIS study.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 It takes only 35,000 votes to win a congressional seat in some districts in California that have a large number of illegal and legal non citizen immigrant. In states like Mississippi and Indiana it takes 100,000. Congressional seats are fixedat 435 so that when a state like California or Texas gain large numbers of residents through immigration and births by their children, other states lose congressional seats. It is a zero sum game.

But it is worse than that. as the number of districts with high numbers of noncitizens increase, the districts that have largely citizens become fewer and lose influence. This is what has happened in California and is why we have a socialist Mexican-American? legislature. We need to draw legislative and congressional districts around voters, not residents to deal with this. At Townhall .com Phyllis Schafly has written about this in an article entitled "Illegal Immigration Calls Into Question Equal Representation." Click onto columnists on that site to find her artiicle. We need to scream about this issue with Congress as well.

Illegal immigration calls into question equal representation
By Phyllis Schlafly

The article is too long to post it but here is the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2003/11/03/illegal_immigration_calls_into_question_equal_representation

---

Census bureau on apportionment.

This certainly should be based on citizenship. Add it to the list of changes we need, along with ending the anchor baby fiasco.

 Steve

---

Ya know folks, we won one Battle and got S#1639, or S#1348 dropped, but they will not let up. I am tired and along with all of the great people on here, I am sure you are too. I do see some progress and knowing that McCain is dropping out satisfies me greatly as he is not on our side. We really must concentrate on getting Bush, Cheney and Pelosi along with Fienstien or Frankenstein out of office. These are the people along with Reid, etc and I am not stopping at Kennedy either, or now Bobby Kennedy Jr. that is starting to get together with Ted and the Crew also. I feel tired folks, but I will remain steadfast in all we do as a family here on Firesociety.

---

It's not just the illegal alien criminals that are the problem. It is also the felons who haven't regained their right to vote as well as lots of dead people, double-voters and all of the rest that goes into voter fraud.

Washington State experienced all of the above in the presidential election of 2004 and then some. To date, the problems have not been fixed and they never will be. The Democrat-controlled Washington State legislature and Democrat-Socialist governor do not want voter fraud problems to be fixed. The largest county in the state, King County, is heavily liberal and the leader in voter fraud of the state. Democrats like it that way. They want to let felons regain the vote prior to serving their sentences and are almost assured of receiving the votes of illegal alien criminals.

 I might add the Washington State legislature this year voted down a bill that would require voters to provide proof of citizenship, voted down a bill that would make it more difficult to obtain Washington State driver's licenses which illegal alien criminals get easily and then use for government services and benefits, and King County voted to allow an all-mail ballot - one of the easiest ways to ensure more voter fraud.

Does Washington State have a recall law? We in Florida don't however we are trying to get a petition going to recall Mel Martinez. We need to keep up and hand them their heads on a platter. Period!!

---

california did it awhile back..take courage knowing it can be done..we just need the right mix of support and people that will take the lead in such a project as a recall election....P.S. and if the president or next president dont pardon the border agents then we aught to unite as a country and recall the president who is in office...looks to be next president because i dont think we can get a recall election going this soon to the next election..at least i have not heard of one in the works that is going to be ready before the 2008 election..so let this serve as a warning to the incoming President...Pardon the border agents or be Recalled!!!

 

I also am in agreement regarding...that illegal immigration numbers should not count when comes down to representation....

---

First off, it is late as far as recalling President Bush is concerned, however, we still need to act on it and get it in the works as I am not so sure he won't call out an executive order and call Martial Law. It is really looking this way. I don't think it will happen, but with all of the ties that these people have with The Arabs etc., and all the troubles that are heading this way, you can't count that idea out. We are definitley going into a huge problem as I stated before. Yes, we need Our Border Patrol Agents PARDONED!! Pardoned so that they can go back to their lives and do what they were trained to do without fear from the Government. These laws must be adhered to that are already on the books. This is where Our President has failed as has Clinton, and his predessesors have not taken care of before now. This goes way back into the 60's. We definitley need to all assimilate as one family and take care of this situation. The rest will fall once the process takes root. Then, we can put in the proper elected officials that have the USA in the best interest of America. I will say it again. We need the Border closed now!, and we need to deport the illegal aliens that have caused so much damage to our Country and we need to get back on the right track again. Is this possible? I am out of ideas. But, I like you, will gladly listen. We need to stop this identity theft and we do not need a gd chip!! That's Communistic and I won't bow down to a rug or a Communistic theatre!

---

This argument over having identification to vote and gain access to services is the most ridiculous one that I have ever heard of, what would be this massive hardship that it is supposed to create, every time you go to the bank and make a cash transactioin they require real identification and they don't care how old or what color nationlity or whether you changed you depends this morning you want money you show ID. Buy a gun ID. WHATS THE PROBLEM.

---

Received in my e-mail today.

Hope these 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read by the majority of Americans. Then they will have something to yell at their U.S. Congressmembers.

14 Reasons to Deport Illegal Aliens...
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for
Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American
wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the United States . http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine and marijuana, crossed into
the U. S. from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml
So using the LOWEST estimates, the annual cost OF ILLEGAL ALIENS is $338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR! So if deporting them costs between $206 and $230 BILLION DOLLARS, Hell get rid of em', We'll be ahead after the 1st year!!!

---

blaze77535 said:

This argument over having identification to vote and gain access to services is the most ridiculous one that I have ever heard of, what would be this massive hardship that it is supposed to create, every time you go to the bank and make a cash transactioin they require real identification and they don't care how old or what color nationlity or whether you changed you depends this morning you want money you show ID. Buy a gun ID. WHATS THE PROBLEM.

 

Check this out blaze77535 if you haven't already seen this:

Pennsylvania Case Reveals How McCarthy Bill Could Threaten All Gun
Owners
-- Troubling questions in HR 2640 still go unanswered

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

"For the first time [in history, HR 2640], if enacted, would
statutorily impose a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans." --
Military Order of the Purple Heart, June 18, 2007

ACTION:

1. Even if you have already sent an e-mail to your Senators on the
McCarthy bill, please send another such as the one at the end of this
alert. Yes, you might have already taken action on HR 2640. But if
you (and many other gun owners like yourself) haven't taken any
action recently, then NO ONE is taking action. After all, the NRA is
supporting this bill, so they're not rustlin' up the troops in
opposition to this massive gun control bill. Remember the
immigration fight -- it took weeks of continued activism to kill that
bill. This fight may very well be the same.

2. Please try to get as many of your friends as you can to join with
you in this effort to kill the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Now that
Senators are returning from their July 4th holiday, we need to get as
many gun owners as possible to remind them that HR 2640 is
unacceptable!


McCARTHY BILL COULD COME UP AT ANY TIME IN THE U.S. SENATE

Now that Congress returns to work this week, your liberties are in
jeopardy once again!

You will remember that before the Independence Day break, the House
of Representatives passed a McCarthy gun control bill (HR 2640)
without any hearings, without any committee action... they put it on
the Suspension Calendar and simply got a non-recorded voice vote.

An important part of the legislative process is to introduce a bill
in committee, to get both public and private observers to ask
questions, make recommendations and offer comments on the bill.

But for some reason, HR 2640 was not given this benefit. The bill
was rammed through the legislature with very few Representatives
present on the House floor... there was no recorded vote at all!

So it's not surprising that, having skipped much of the legislative
process, there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding HR
2640. In fact, these questions have only been magnified after an
offhanded, tongue-in-cheek remark made at the Harrisburg Community
College in Pennsylvania cost a man his gun rights for life in that
state.

Newspapers last month reported that Horatio Miller allegedly said
that it could be "worse than Virginia Tech" if someone broke
into his
car, because there were guns there. It is not clear whether he was
making a threat against a person who might burglarize his car, or if
he was simply saying that the bad guy could do a lot of damage
because of the guns he would find there. Nevertheless, Miller was
arrested, but not charged with anything.

The comment Miller made was certainly not the smartest thing to say.
But realize, we don't incarcerate people for making stupid statements
in this country -- at least not yet. Miller was a concealed carry
permit holder who, as such, had passed vigorous background checks
into his past history. Miller does not have a criminal record.

Regardless, the county district attorney did not like what he had
said, so, according to the Harrisburg Patriot News on June 20, "I
contacted the sheriff and had his license to carry a firearm revoked.
And I asked police to commit him under Section 302 of the mental
health procedures act and that was done. He is now ineligible to
possess firearms [for life] because he was committed involuntarily."

Get that?

Pennsylvania is operating exactly the way Rep. McCarthy's bill (HR
2640) could treat all Americans. You might be thinking, I've never
had a mental illness... I'm not a military veteran... I've never been
on Ritalin... hey, I have nothing to worry about under the McCarthy
bill. Right?

Well, think again.


DO YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT MAKE YOU A POTENTIAL DANGER?

The Pennsylvania case shows how all gun owners could be threatened by
HR 2640. After all, did you ever tell anyone that the Second
Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights because the Founders
(such as James Madison) wanted the people to be able to overturn a
tyrannical American government?

Or, while you were watching the nightly news -- and getting a
detailed account of all the crime in your area -- did you ever make a
statement such as, "If someone were to break through my door, I'd
blow him away!"

Well, those kinds of statements will certainly make anti-gun nuts
think you're a potential danger to yourself or others. So if you
make the local district attorney or police officer nervous, how
difficult would it be for him to get a psychiatrist (most of whom are
very left-wing) to say that you are a danger to yourself and to
others?

Or, would the district attorney even need to get a psychiatrist? One
of the outrageous aspects of the McCarthy bill is that Section 3(2)
codifies existing federal regulations. And existing federal code
says it only takes a "lawful authority" to
"adjudicate" someone as a
mental defective.(1) And another section of the bill makes it clear
this "adjudication" does not need to be made by a formal court, but
can simply be a "determination" -- such as a medical diagnosis.(2)

Consider how significant this is. The BATFE has been quietly
attempting to amend the federal code by regulatory fiat for years,
but they've been somewhat restrained in their ability to interpret
these regulations because they are, after all, regulations (and not
statutory law).

But with HR 2640, much of the pablum that BATFE bureaucrats have
quietly added to the code over the years will now become the LAW OF
THE LAND -- even though those regs were never submitted to a
legislative committee or scrutinized in legislative hearings or
debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.

When one looks at the federal regs cited above, there are a lot of
questions that still remain unanswered. What kinds of people can
fall into this category of "other lawful authority" that can deem
someone to be a mental defective? Certainly, it would seem to apply
to Veterans Administration shrinks. After all, the federal
government already added more than 80,000 veterans with Post
Traumatic Stress into the NICS system in 2000.

But who else could be classified as a "lawful authority"? A school
counselor? A district attorney? What about a legislator, a city
councilman or a cop? They are certainly "authorities" in their own
right. Could the words "lawful authority" also apply to them?

Do we really want to risk the Second Amendment on the question of
what the words "lawful authority" in 27 CFR 478.11 mean --
once they
have been "statutized" by HR 2640 and BATF is no longer under ANY
constraint and can read it as broadly as they want?

If the "lawful authority" thinks you pose a danger to yourself or
others (or can't manage your own affairs) then your gun rights could
be gone.

In its open letter of May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this
"danger" doesn't have to be "imminent" or
"substantial," but can
include "any danger" at all. How many shrinks -- using the
Pennsylvania standard -- are going to say that a pro-gun American
like you, who believes the Second Amendment is the last defense
against tyranny, DOESN'T POSE AT LEAST AN INFINITESIMAL RISK of
hurting someone else?

As easy as that, your gun rights would be gone forever.

HR 2640 is Janet Reno's dream. Does somebody make a politician
nervous? Get a prescription pad, get your friendly left-wing
psychiatrist to make the "dangerous" diagnosis, and it's all over.
Expungement will be virtually impossible. Just turn in your guns.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) See 27 CFR 478.11.
(2) See Section 101(c)(1)(C).


FOR MORE INFORMATION: Supporters of the McCarthy bill are hanging
their hat on language which purports to help disqualified people to
get their rights restored. So GOA has built a special section on its
website that gets to the truth on this issue and informs gun owners
of the dangers in HR 2640. Please go to
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm to learn what the specifics of the
bill are, who its main supporters are, answers to claims made by
proponents of the bill, who faces the greatest risk of being
disqualified for buying a gun, and more.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can use the pre-written letter below to
help direct your comments to your two U.S. Senators. Please visit
the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

The Military Order of the Purple Heart got it right when it stated
that for the first time in history, HR 2640 "would statutorily impose
a lifetime gun ban on battle-scarred veterans."

The Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is chartered by
Congress, is urging the DEFEAT of HR 2640, the Brady-expansion
legislation introduced by anti-gun Rep. Carolyn McCarthy.

Despite what you may have heard elsewhere, this bill THREATENS gun
owners' rights and represents one of the biggest gun bans in history.


A recent case in Pennsylvania shows how easily a gun owner can be
slapped with a LIFETIME gun ban, without any due process, based
solely on a mere accusation by a shrink or other "lawful
authority."
For more information on this -- and for a point-by-point analysis of
HR 2640 -- please go to http://www.gunowners.org on the website of
Gun Owners of America.

All the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad guys from
getting firearms. Severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England,
Canada, Germany and other places have not stopped evil people from
using guns to commit murder.

Again, I hope you will OPPOSE the McCarthy bill (HR 2640). Thank
you.

Sincerely

---

The issue that I am trying to addrress is that the 12 to 20 something million illegals do have representation in both the House of Representatives and our legislatures.. They often live in districts where the citizens living there and eligible to vote are the first generation to be eligible to vote. The mayor of Los Angeles and many legislators and Congrssmen from California fit this. If you think they vote the same as most Americans would, you are wrong. Please read Phyllis Schlafly's article. I know we all have information and ideas, but this is one that needs to be known and understood. I would like to thank Steve Elliott for immediately grasping its critical importance to all of us.

JOhn has brought to our attention a good point. Let's use this forum to gather intel on this. Can anyone:

--independently confirm that non-citizens and even illegals are counted in the census and used as the basis for deciding how many representatives states get?

--What is the solution? Does this require constittuional amendment or just legislation?

--Schlafly referenced some numbers (districts with high percentage of non-resident representation). Any confimation of this?

 --Here's the kicker: could someone show a revised congressional district map if only CITIZENS were counted? Now that would be interesting.

 Can the FS team be the research team for this? 

 Steve

---

ALERT: i just received an email Stating that the US Senate plans to open their business for Thursday July 12th 2007 with a Hindu prayer...

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257

 

Jump on this if you can if your senate office's are still open today...if not 1st thing in the morning call yours senators.....

---

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Weintraub, Daniel - Sacramento 
Sent:   Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:46 PM
To:     Weintraub, Daniel - Sacramento
Subject:        districsts, non citizens

The story behind the Democrats' losing streak Or
[Daniel Weintraub] 
igin Daniel Weintraub Publication Date 3/11/2004 Page B9 Section EDITORIALS Edition METRO FINAL Dateline Corrections Memo OTHER VIEWS Body Text

For as long as Gray Davis was governor, his top political adviser, Garry South, preached to fellow Democrats not to take the state's electorate for granted. While the voters year after year gave Democrats big majorities in the Legislature, South warned that Californians were not nearly as leftist as those results might lead some to believe.

In the end, South's plea for sensible centrism was ignored, and the Legislature's lurch to the left helped cost Davis his job. But the overwhelming defeat last week of Proposition 56, the measure that would have made it easier for lawmakers to pass a budget and raise taxes, was another piece of evidence demonstrating that South knew what he was talking about.

The initiative's downfall fits into a long-running pattern through which California voters, when asked to set policy themselves, lean right, even as they are electing to office a Legislature dominated by the left.

Proposition 56 was the brainchild of the state's public employee labor unions. Known as the Budget Accountability initiative, it would have lowered from two-thirds to 55 percent the threshold in the Assembly and Senate for passing budgets and raising taxes.

Democrats endorsed the measure en masse, and the unions backed it with big money. The unsuccessful campaign for the initiative cost more than $15 million, with one union - the Service Employees International - contributing nearly $9 million to the cause. Other big labor donors were the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers and the California School Employees Association.

Despite all that spending, the initiative failed miserably, winning just 34 percent of the vote. Big business opponents, spending $9 million, dubbed the measure the "blank check" initiative and stressed its potential to lead to tax increases.

Although it was ahead in early polls, Proposition 56 faded badly down the stretch.

But there is more to the story. Going back 10 years, Democrats have been on the losing side of almost every major ballot fight in California.

The most obvious examples are the four big social issues that made it to the ballot between 1994 and 2000: immigration, affirmative action, bilingual education and gay marriage. In each case, the Democrats went one way, the voters another.

Other, lesser examples abound. Whether the issue has been civil justice and lawsuits, criminal sentencing, regulating health care, raising taxes or contracting with private firms to provide public services, the Democrats and the voters have usually gone their separate ways. The only notable exceptions were a measure to increase the minimum wage, which passed; an initiative to limit unions' political activity, which failed; and two losing proposals to create taxpayer-financed vouchers for private school tuition.

At the same time, however, the voters have been loading the Legislature with Democrats. The party has controlled both the Assembly and Senate for most of the past 45 years, with brief exceptions in the late 1960s and the mid-1990s. The current partisan breakdown is typically lopsided: 48 of the 80 Assembly seats are in Democratic hands, and 25 of 40 Senate seats are held by the party.

Part of this split is due to the shape of district lines, which were drawn after the 2000 census to favor the Democrats. But a bigger reason is that, while most people don't realize it, statewide races and legislative elections don't really involve the same electorate.

In statewide races, only voters count. Those who cannot or do not register and vote are left out of the equation entirely. But legislative districts are divided evenly by population, not voters. And because immigrants tend to live disproportionately in urban areas represented by Democrats, members of that party actually represent fewer voters, on average, than do Republicans. Those who do vote in those Democratic districts are, in effect, casting proxies for those who do not.

Consider the November 2002 elections for the Assembly. The number of votes cast per district ranged from a high of about 139,000 to a low of 31,500. While the district where the most votes were cast turned out to be held by a Democrat (Joe Nation of Marin County), that was an anomaly. Of the 20 districts casting the most votes, 11 were won by Republicans, and of the top 30 districts, 18 are in Republican hands. On the other side of the ledger, the 19 districts with the smallest vote totals were all won by Democrats.

In other words, it takes fewer votes to elect a Democrat than a Republican. The 32 Republicans in the Assembly represent an average of about 101,000 voters each, while the vote in the 48 Democratic districts totaled an average of just 80,000.

Overall, the Democrats won just 53 percent of the vote cast in all 80 elections combined, which translates into about 43 seats in the 80-member Assembly. Yet they hold 48.

That's the way it goes in a representative democracy. As long as the non-voters tend to live near Democratic voters, that party will hold an advantage in legislative races. But as the initiative results show, and Davis learned last year, that edge doesn't necessarily reflect the views of voters statewide.


* * *

The Bee's Daniel Weintraub can be reached at (916) 321-1914 or at dweintraub@sacbee.com. Readers can see his daily Weblog at www.sacbee.com/insider Back columns, www.sacbee.com/weintraub face="Times New Roman"> Graphic Text

Steve Elliot

Steve, you can trust Phyllis Schlafly's statements regarding Congressional representation and apportionment.  I have not read her article yet but know she maticulously researches her subjects.  I have also read apportionment is based on population - not voters or citizens.  In addition I recall apportionment was based on population from my U S History classes in college.  Population figures are based on the Census count which has (over) diligently sought out the homeless and illegal aliens.

The result of this has been that states such as Mississippi are losing representation and those with high illegal populations, such as California, have been gaining representation - for their illegal alien constituents.

 

God bless our troops, America and Americans

 

I have been doing more research on the Internet and found this article by the Center for Immigrant Studies, "Illegal Immigrants Reshpe the Political Landscape." This was found at www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10520

That was a very good post you put on here John. As far as Steve's question, I have no clue as what to do anymore. I am sorry, but have been tied up these past few days once again..Work, work, work..lol...Hope all are doing good on here.

---

Representation also includes the Muslim senator I believe? Is he a senator? Or a Rep.? Did you see the entourage behind him? Was I dreaming? FOX showed the "clip".

Nice post, JW!!

---