Proposal would subtract illegal aliens from redistricting count The Beacon Journal Associated Press March 7, 2006
In the year 2000, Ohio lost a congressional seat and three states where population had increased due to immigrant residents gained representation in Congress. Congresswoman Candice Miller’s proposed legislation would exclude non-citizens from the census count when used for the purpose of apportionment.
Some remedies are worse than the disease.
Here’s why,
Wouldn’t any gain as projected by Mrs. Miller’s proposal be offset by the loss of non-citizen residents?
All residents in the *Census count include citizen and non-citizen. If this proposal became a law, all the states would have to subtract the non-citizen population from the total, and the apportionment of the 435 Representatives would be based on the lower census total using the **Method of Equal Proportions.
After a few million folks have been excluded, the apportionment would be back to square one wouldn’t it? It seems to me if the method is equal then the numbers would be lower but, California, Texas and New York would still have the most residents and be given legislative seats on the same basis as now.
Even though I have read claims that Ohio might gain a seat with this new exclusive means of counting citizens I don't think this kind of legislation would lead us to a proud moment in our history.
What about the Legislator in the district where thousands of non-citizens reside? If the non-citizens are excluded and the Legislator’s district is expanded to include ‘citizen’ residents won’t that be an unfair burden? Non-citizens have contact with their Legislative representative for many reasons, like, the naturalization process, Green card, Visa permits. Who will the non-citizen contact?
Another reason I would oppose this legislation is found in the testimony of expert Census witnesses before the ***Committee on Government Reform. One reason most of the witnesses cited had to do with the mechanics, the way the Census Bureau gathers this information in the first place. In the 2000 Census, the question about citizenship was only found on the long form, so about 1 out of 6 Americans answered that question and the Census Bureau projected the results based on this sampling. For the next Census in 2010, the question will be on every form, the “short form” which, if I understood it correctly, will be the ONLY form the Bureau will use.
Here is a quote from the testimony of Clark Benson Publisher of The Polidata Demographic and Political Guides
“The implementation of the American Community Survey (ACS) for the 2010 Census means that the short form will be the only census form distributed. Given the perceptual disincentive for the respondent to indicate that they are not a citizen, there is an increased likelihood that two things will occur. First, the accuracy of the citizenship status is likely to be suspect and the numbers are likely to overstate the number of citizens. Second, the likelihood of non-response increases for the
entire form. In the past, such a missing question could be filled-in by imputation. ......
.........the Census counts all persons, including those too young to vote. The form can not distinguish between those immigrants waiting to become citizens naturalized and those who will never seek citizenship.
*Detailed data tables showing selected characteristics of the foreign-born population by nativity, citizenship status, year of entry into the United States, and region of birth are available on theU.S. Census Bureau Web site. Click on the "F" under "Subjects A-Z" then select "Foreign-Born Population Data." Locate tables by year.
**The table “Method of Equal Proportions” can be found on the U.S. Census Bureau Web site. Use the Search box on the main page and type in "Computing Apportionment"
***You can find the testimony at this website:
THOMAS: Committee Hearing Transcripts
Committee on Government Reform
Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census
Chairman Michael R. Turner R-OH
Hearing titled:
“Counting the vote: Should only U.S. citizens be included in apportioning our elected representatives?”
