Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree3Likes

Thread: Bill would forbid counting Arizona illegal immigrants in census

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006

    Bill would forbid counting Arizona illegal immigrants in census

    Common sense alert!

    January 06, 2016 7:00 pm • By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

    PHOENIX — A veteran state lawmaker wants to block communities trying to boost their revenues through a special interim census from counting residents who are not in this country legally.

    The legislation crafted by Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, would allow cities, towns and counties to count only those who are U.S. citizens, nationals of U.S. territories, or are legally admitted to the United States. More to the point, SB 1044 would forbid counting anyone who is an illegal immigrant.

    Kavanagh’s move come as several Arizona cities are conducting mid-decade counts to get a more accurate figure of how many people are present. That can have immediate financial consequences as some state dollars are doled out to communities based on population.

    There’s a lot of money involved.

    This past budget year the state distributed nearly $609 million in “urban revenue sharing.” State transportation dollars also are allocated to communities at least in part based on population.

    In general, the larger the community, the bigger the slice.

    How many people are here illegally remains a guess at best.

    Pew Hispanic estimated there are 11.3 million undocumented individuals in the country. And its most recent figures for Arizona put the figure at about 300,000.

    Where they are within the state, however, is one of those unknowns that Kavanagh hopes to determine through his legislation.

    The question remains, though, whether it’s fair to cut aid based on whether someone who is living in a city or town is legally present.

    Kavanagh, whose wife, Linda, is the mayor of Fountain Hills, sees the issue from a different perspective.

    “Why should the people in Fountain Hills get less state-shared revenue because there are more illegal immigrants in Phoenix?” he asked.

    Nor is he dissuaded by arguments that communities have to provide services to all in their borders, here legally or not.

    “If a city that has that problem wants to perhaps pressure the federal government to do their job and remove these people, then this will encourage that,” Kavanagh said.

    He conceded there are flaws to the plan.

    One is that, no matter what happens in a mid-decade tally, the Census Bureau’s official decennial count will include all residents, legal or not. So the new revenue sharing figures after 2020 would be reset based on total population.

    Then there’s the simple question of why anyone would admit to someone who shows up at the door there are people present who are not here legally. But Kavanagh said his 20 years as a police officer suggests otherwise.

    “People said, ‘What criminal in their right mind would incriminate themselves after you read them Miranda (rights)?’” he said. “They do it every day.”
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    The question remains, though, whether it’s fair to cut aid based on whether someone who is living in a city or town is legally present.
    A question? What question? Why is this a "question remains"? Who is asking this stupid question? No one living in a city or town illegally is entitled to any type of "aid" except a deportation at their expense if they have anything to confiscate to pay for it and if not then a very modest inexpensive trip to the farthest reaches of their country of citizenship with a big fat record in big capital letters and huge red flat that says "CRIMINAL DEPORTED" which triggers a round up of all their illegal family, friends, children and minor children if under this bizarre practice of "anchor babies" who are DEPORTED with them as a single unit. the finding of one is probable cause to pursue all the others.

    Last edited by Judy; 01-08-2016 at 04:01 AM.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    They were already counted in 2010 census, probably not all responded though. I have the figures by state and one can see @ 21 million, many more millions than the 12 million figure that is quoted in the news. Texas, New York, California have the highest figures and that is 5yrs ago - so imagine the updated figure now.

  4. #4
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    North Carolina
    The allocation of funding is not the only problem with including illegal immigrants in census numbers.

    Illegal Immigrants Distort Congressional Representation and Federal Programs (2007)

    Most Americans know that their representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is based on proportional representation as determined by the decennial Census. And, many Americans are aware that the Census takers try to count everybody residing in the country. But, most Americans do not make the connection that illegal immigrants and other foreigners who are not legal permanent residents are part of the calculation for the apportionment of Congressional representatives. If the population of illegal aliens and other long-term foreign residents were inconsequential, this would not be an important issue. However, with 18.5 million more persons counted in the 2000 Census than the number of U.S. citizens, this is a valid major concern.

    Because illegal aliens should not even be in the country, and other nonimmigrants such as foreign students and guest workers are here only temporarily, it makes no sense to distribute Congressional seats as if these foreign nationals deserved representation the same as American citizens.

    The U.S. population that logically should be enumerated includes U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents (immigrants). As only the former may vote in federal elections, the apportionment of seats in Congress should be done on the basis of the number of citizens in each state. 1 Apportionment of federal funds should be based on the number of citizens and legal residents of each state.

    Some federal funding programs provide compensation to the states based on mandated expenditures for foreign residents, i.e., emergency medical care, incarceration, English language learning. The number and identity of these non-citizen users of these services is appropriately collected by the service provider and should be provided to the federal government as a condition precedent to receiving any distribution of federal funds.

    On the basis of the current Census questionnaire, however, there is no way to determine if a foreign resident is legally or illegally in the country. But the Census does ask whether persons are U.S. citizens. It could also ask persons who are not U.S. citizens if they are legal permanent residents ("green card" holders).

    As a result of the current incoherent system of allocating seats based on all persons counted in the Census, some Member of Congress represent many fewer U.S. citizens and permanent residents than others. Similarly, some states that have large numbers of illegal aliens and other non-citizens gain the advantage of additional representation in Congress at the expense of states that have fewer illegal aliens and non-citizens, since the total number in the House of Representatives is currently fixed by law at 435 members.

    Besides the distortions in apportionment of representation among the states and in the number of citizens represented by each representative, the Census also causes distortions when it is used to allocate federal public assistance funds among the states because nonimmigrants, including illegal aliens, are not entitled to public welfare.

    If apportionment based on U.S. citizenship had been in force following the 2000 Census, the distribution of seats in the House of Representatives would have been as shown in the chart below, which also shows the actual apportionment and the difference (states not listed would have no change).

    State Reallocation Current Change
    California 47 53 -6
    Florida 24 25 -1
    Indiana 10 9 1
    Kentucky 7 6 1
    Michigan 16 15 1
    Mississippi 5 4 1
    New York 28 29 -1
    Ohio 19 18 1
    Oklahoma 6 5 1
    Pennsylvania 20 19 1
    South Carolina 7 6 1
    Texas 31 32 -1
    Wisconsin 9 8 1

    As may be seen from the reallocation of seats based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the states with the largest illegal and resident nonimmigrant populations currently gain influence in the law making process as a result of the current distribution of congressional seats. The perverse effect of this current apportionment process is that it encourages states to accommodate the presence of persons who constitute a major fiscal burden on their citizenry.

    If the seats in the House of Representative were reapportioned based on the distribution of U.S. citizens, the big loser of seats would be California, losing 6 seats. Three other states with large immigrant populations both legal and illegal would also lose one seat each, i.e., Texas, New York and Florida. The winners in this reallocation of congressional representation would be the residents of Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Wisconsin. Those states each would gain one additional representative.

    Rev. 3/07

    End notes:

    1. Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides, “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.” Section 1 of the same Amendment provides, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The order of these two Sections implies that the persons upon whom apportionment is to be made are persons born or naturalized in the United States.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Similar Threads

  1. Challenging U.S. Census Policy of Counting Illegal Aliens When Apportioning Seats in
    By HAPPY2BME in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:11 AM
  2. Obama administration "rigging" us census by counting illegal aliens
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-21-2012, 01:11 AM
  3. Census Counting Controversey: Should Illegal Immigrants Be I
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 01:56 AM
  4. LA: State GOP hopes to block census from counting illegal im
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 06:48 PM
  5. U.S. Census sparks feud over the counting of illegal aliens
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 08:01 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts