Non-Citizen Population Alters House Representation

A serious problem is growing as the number of illegal immigrants (and otherwise non-citizens) expands, particularly in certain states.

In the House of Representatives, representation is based on state populations, without regard to citizenship. As illegal immigrants pour into places such as California and Texas, a disproportionate representation in the House follows, by not equating to the representation of actual citizens therein. It is highly unlikely that the Founders could have foreseen this problem.

While I maintain a skeptical consideration of such strong actions as amendments to our Constitution, a proposal has been made in the House which seeks to remedy the disproportionate representation, and I find it worthy of consideration.

House Joint Resolution 53

`Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by counting the number of persons in each State who are citizens of the United States.'.

Currently, Representatives are apportioned as stated in Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution:

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, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative..

The Census Bureau proves use of non-citizens in the apportionment counts.

From the publication titled 'Congressional Apportionment', Census 2000 Brief, Issued July 2001 (PDF) (Cached HTML):

Were undocumented residents(aliens) in the 50 states included in the Census 2000 apportionment population counts?

Yes, all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in one of the 50 states were included in Census 2000 and thus in the apportionment counts.

In creating Article I of the Constitution (ratified in 1788), our founding fathers did not predict or prepare for the present day reality of millions of illegal immigrants living within our borders.

In fact, I don't believe they had concretely codified 'citizenship' and the rights thereof until enacting the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868).

Changes are more necessary now because, conservative estimates suggest there to be around 11 million illegal immigrants in the US, largely pooled in specific states (not even including other non-citizens). This constitutes a quantifiable influence on the apportionment measurements in determining representation.

Therefore, members of the House have proposed a bill to specify 'American citizens' for the count in determining representation.

Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, October 2003

Excerpts:

• The presence of illegal aliens in other states caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House in 2000, while Montana failed to gain a seat it otherwise would have.

• Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House, it has the same effect on presidential elections because the Electoral College is based on the size of congressional delegations.

• The presence of all non-citizens in the Census redistributed a total of nine seats. The term "non-citizens" includes illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and temporary visitors, mainly foreign students and guest workers. In addition to the four states that lost a seat due to the presence of illegal aliens, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah each had one fewer seat than they otherwise would have.

• None of the states that lost a seat due to non-citizens is declining in population. The population of the four states that lost seats due to illegal immigration increased 1.6 million in the 1990s, while the population of the five states that lost seats because of other non-citizens grew by two million.

• Immigrant-induced reapportionment is different from reapportionment caused when natives relocate to other states. Immigration takes away representation from states composed almost entirely of U.S. citizens and results in the creation of new districts in states with large numbers of non-citizens.

• In the nine states that lost a seat due to the presence of non-citizens, only one in 50 residents is a non-citizen. In contrast, one in seven residents is a non-citizen in California, which picked up six of these seats. One in 10 residents is a non-citizen in New York, Texas, and Florida, the states that gained the other three seats.

• The numbers are even larger in some districts — 43 percent of the population in California’s immigrant-heavy 31st district is made up of non-citizens, while in the 34th district, 38 percent are non-citizens. In Florida’s 21st district, 28 percent of the population is non-citizen, and in New York’s 12th district the number is 23 percent.

• The large number of non-citizens creates a tension with the principle of "one man, one vote" because it takes so few votes to win these immigrant-heavy districts. In 2002, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost a seat due to illegal aliens, while it took fewer than 35,000 votes to win the 34th and 31st districts of California.