There’s no mystery about why Democrats resist enforcing our immigration laws

From: nationalreview.com,  by Ian Smith,  on Jul 16, 2015,  see the article HERE.

Illegal-Immigration-by-Rick-McKee

A new “sanctuary cities” map from the Center for Immigration Studies goes a long way toward explaining why open-borders Democrats are so addicted to flouting our immigration laws. When you consider the political makeup of the cities, counties, and states where illegal aliens are welcomed, you start to suspect that the liberal elite in San Francisco and elsewhere aren’t interested only in cheap nannies and gardeners. For them, pulling in more illegal aliens is, perhaps first and foremost, about pumping up their political power.

The Census Bureau includes aliens (both legal and illegal) in the statistics used to apportion our 435 congressional districts. This has the perverse effect of helping states with bigger immigrant populations to inflate both their representation in Congress and the number of Electoral College votes they are allotted (the latter is a function of the former). Just through their illegal-alien numbers, the states of New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, and Illinois, which all went for Obama in 2012, received eight additional congressional seats in the last reapportionment, with over half of those gains coming from their sanctuary cities and counties. It’s clear, then, why Democrats resist enforcing our immigration laws: More bodies mean more power.

It is estimated that fully half of America’s 41 million immigrants have settled in just five metropolitan areas: New York City–Newark, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, and San Francisco–Oakland. According to data from the Center for Immigration Studies, every one of these cities and their surrounding counties has sanctuary policies of some kind. Considering the illegal-alien pull factor of these policies, which Kate Steinle’s murderer admitted to, it’s unsurprising that the immigrant populations of these sanctuary cities includes many who are here illegally.

Data from the Migration Policy Institute show that 3.2 million of the nation’s 11 million illegal aliens reside in just 19 counties that include the sanctuary cities of the deep-blue states listed in the previous paragraph. Furthermore, because these estimates are based on Census Bureau mail-in forms, which some commentators believe illegal aliens are on average less willing to return, they likely undercount the true level of illegal aliens in these counties.

After the 1910 census, when the U.S. population was 92 million, Congress capped the number of House seats at 435. The immigrant population has since exploded, especially after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, heavily promoted by Ted Kennedy. Today, average representation in the House is around one representative per 700,000. By comparison, the lower chambers in Canada, Britain, France, and Germany have around one representative per 90,000.

It’s not surprising that California flipped from red to blue after the U.S. adopted an open-borders policy.

The immigrants we’ve let in since the late Sixties are largely Hispanic, and ever since the 1980 election, when we started tracking their voting figures, Hispanics have reliably voted heavily Democratic. Considering, then, that California has two of the five main areas immigrants end up settling in (Los Angeles and San Francisco–Oakland), it’s not surprising that the state flipped from red to blue after the U.S. adopted an open-borders policy. (California has just enacted a statewide sanctuary policy, although it is weaker than San Francisco’s.)

But on top of up-ending states politically, open-borders and sanctuary policies also make those states more powerful. Neither San Francisco County nor four of the counties surrounding it (Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Contra Costa) enforce Secure Communities, a federal program that requires sheriffs to cooperate with immigration authorities when they’re asked to hold aliens for pickup. Together, these five counties account for over 330,000 illegal aliens, or half a congressional seat — or Electoral College vote. That may not seem like much, but as we know from the Bush–Gore election, one Electoral College vote can determine the outcome of an election. And if those five counties are taken together with Los Angeles County and two of its neighbors, Orange and Riverside Counties, their combined illegal-alien population accounts for almost three congressional seats.

And if you look at the entire illegal-alien populations of the top immigration states, New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, and Illinois (I’ve excluded the Republican stronghold of Texas), together these states are given a full eight additional representatives in Congress. If the Obama administration actually compelled these states to enforce our immigration laws, would they have such outsized representation?

More fundamentally, eight Electoral College votes could make a difference in a close election.

Naked self-interest has surrounded our apportionment system ever since it was revised by the Fourteenth Amendment. In a law-review article about the debates over the apportionment clause in that amendment, Patrick Charles, a former analyst with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, describes how Congressman Roscoe Conkling from the big-immigration state of New York lobbied hard for a broader apportionment base because, as Conkling said, the estimated “unnaturalized foreigners” in his state contributed “three Representatives and a fraction of a fourth.”

For the mostly Democratic sanctuary cities, counties, and states to start enforcing our immigration laws, they would have to surrender a sizable amount of power, an unlikely prospect.

The GOP could try to pass legislation requiring that the Census Bureau collect information about citizenship and residency status, which Senator David Vitter of Louisiana tried to do in 2009; this would provide a dataset that could be used to remove illegal aliens from the apportionment base. But of course the Democrats would fight it tooth and nail.

Unsurprisingly, of the 50 congressional districts covered by the 19 sanctuary counties mentioned above, 47 are held by Democrats. Many of these representatives would surely be put out of work if illegal aliens were removed from the apportionment base and the sanctuary magnet was turned off. But if our immigration laws continue to be evaded, finding sanctuary from open-borders Democrats will only get harder and harder.

Ian Smith is an attorney and works for the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

~~~~~~~~~~

Silly me, I thought that democrats were welcoming these poor illegal aliens for altruistic reasons. I thought that the democrats were showing how compassionate they were in taking in so many uneducated and unskilled migrants and helping them to start a new bountiful life. 

But nooooo, that was wrong. Democrats aren’t being generous or humanitarian, they’re BUYING votes and gaining political power with taxpayer money. All of the funding that goes to pay for illegal alien welfare benefits, education, and health care comes from the state or local taxpayers and those illegal recipients repay the democrats with their votes. The democrat power base gets more and more entrenched and the politicians retain their cushy jobs – indefinitely.

And the taxpayers foot the bill. Democrats have concocted a scheme that’s forcing taxpayers to pay for new democrat votes, and all under the guise of compassion. 

You have to admire their strategery. Democrat party leadership regularly out-thinks our Republican leadership – and it’s our fault for electing (and re-electing) incompetent goofballs who can’t think past the end of their nose. If the democrats can’t be stopped from their vote buying scheme, the Republican Party will find its way into the realm of the dodo bird – extinction.

Garnet92

 

 

 

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to There’s no mystery about why Democrats resist enforcing our immigration laws

  1. Kathy says:

    The apportionment of our congressional districts is one area I hadn’t thought about, but now that you bring it up, it’s so obvious. Of course, this would be one of their goals because the dems’ brains never stop thinking up new ways to screw over the country. They don’t care about that so long as they stay in power.

    Meanwhile the Rs are still whining about their last dozen infractions and/or scandals, but still playing by the rules. It seems they never see the ulterior motive the dems had in mind, until it’s too late of course.

    • BrianR says:

      The problem’s worse than that, Kathy.

      Never forget that a lot of GOPers are also pro-illegal alien, bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce and Big Business, who want the cheap labor that goes along with a bunch of illegal aliens staying in the country.

      Classic example: Jebbie Bush.

    • Garnet92 says:

      Eggszactly Kathy. Somehow, we have let the leadership of the Republican Party fall into the hands of dumbasses and we allow them to retain control. They’re simply not qualified to match wits with the devious democrats. We need people with brains to be competing with the opposition. We’ve handicapped ourselves by electing idiots like Boehner and McConnell to begin with and then to elect other idiots who elect them to positions of leadership. Unless that changes, we don’t stand a chance.

  2. Hardnox says:

    Good post. The fact that we count illegals to determine House Seats is absurd by any measure. No doubt the left hatched that plan.

    I refuse to accept the premise that LEGAL Hispanics will vote D if the R’s actually stood on principle (whatever that is). The problem is that the R’s are trying to outbid the D’s and thus look like nothing. Hispanics are natural conservatives albeit raised in socialist countries.

    It’s no small wonder why Trump is gaining traction and is leading in the polls. He’s the only one talking about illegals.

    Much of our problem could be corrected if the E-Verify system was actually used and enforced. Presently the fine is $250 for hiring an illegal. BFD.

    • BrianR says:

      Nox, the empirical evidence would argue against your thesis.

      In 1986 Republican Ron Reagan signed the Mazzoli-Simpson amnesty into law, granting amnesty to 3+ million illegal aliens. In spite of that, Latinos vote somewhere around 75% for the Dems.

      The vast majority of illegal aliens are under-educated unskilled people, in many cases deficient in even basic English language skills. In other words, a natural Dem voting bloc.

      Yes, they’re Catholics. But people tend to vote their wallets first, before any other issue, and the Dems are Santa Claus. Who’s going to vote against Santa Claus? Do you think the abortion issue is more important to such people than the free money the Dems promise? On that basis alone I disagree with your statement that “Hispanics are natural conservatives”, and the voting history would seem to support my position.

      • Hardnox says:

        Point taken Brian. Stats are stats. That said, I have yet to meet a legal Hispanic immigrant that isn’t conservative. Can’t speak for the born heres.

        I think the R message has been wrong for decades. Stand for the principles that made this country great and embrace why this country is a magnet for legal immigrants and keep saying it. Instead the R’s twist themselves into a knot sounding like democrats.

        Legal immigrants are pissed that illegals are getting a free ride.

        Regarding Reagan’s act… he was suckered by Tip O’Neill that border security would ensue immediately afterwards. The D’s reniged.

      • Garnet92 says:

        You both bring up good points. Without the free stuff offered by the dems, I would have said that my opinion is that most Mexicans (et al) do honor conservative values, like religion, family, fellowship, and belief in hard work, but even if those characteristics held true, they probably don’t overcome the promises made by the dems for citizenship, jobs, education, and health care.

        I don’t think that we conservatives can ever get the bulk of the illegal vote, but we can probably get a more important percentage – one that helps – by doing a better job of educating them on why they should vote for us rather than the lying dems. We’ve not given them (or anyone else for that matter) a good sound reason to vote for a Republican candidate – we’ve been offering them rice cakes and strained peas instead of meat and potatoes – we need to field a candidate who will spread the conservative message, loudly and confidently.