Thread: Boxer Amednment to stop Immigration Enforcement

Michelle Malkin:

Story

Boxer amendment would block immigration enforcement in order to count illegal aliens for 2010 Census, boost Democrat seats
By Michelle Malkin • October 8, 2007 03:33 PM

Well, lookee what California Sen. Barbara Boxer is up to now (click link below):

The amendment:
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content ... ndment.jpg

The rub:


Boxer’s amendment, SA 3246, is attached to the current spending bill up on the Senate floor. So, why is Boxer so interested in blocking aggressive immigration enforcement leading up to the 2010 Census?

Hint, hint:

U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

Although they can’t vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

Where do your senators stand?

This is one of those "It is the sense of the Senate" things....so what's it worth?

Boxer thinks by keeping as many ILLEGALS as possible in California, and getting them counted in the census, it will give them more congressional seats...thus giving California even more power....especially when it comes to grabbing taxpayer dollars. I have never seen a greedier bunch of politicians.

It's tricks like this that help explain why Congress has a 22% approval rate and that's high imo.

I seriously doubt their was a consideration for illegal aliens when the law was written regarding the inclusion of non-citizens in census reporting, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN 1790! Furthermore, the word "non-citizens" was more than likely referring to folks who were considered legal resident immigrants, not illegal aliens. Perhaps it's all a matter of interpretation, however, there is no denying the fact that things were very different in 1790.

IMO, the law is wide-open for misguided interpretation, and it's outdated. I seriously doubt the law was written as an excuse for ignoring criminal activity - how could that have been the actual intent? Heck, there was no such thing as an illegal alien in 1790! Our government didn't start processing and/or rejecting immigrants until 1891.

We have to get rid of all these politicians that think they can just do anything they want to enrich their goals. It is time for them to do what the people who elected them want them to do. Afterall, they are in their positions to serve the people.

this was just mentioned on Lous show.

he reported she wants them there to keep the number of house seats from moving and being taken away from california since the # of house seats depends on ones population

Snake in the grass!!